Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Earth Summit II

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Madam Speaker: Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to delay proceedings this morning, but I should be grateful if you would give me guidance. The day before yesterday, I sent you a written application to launch a brief emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20 about the drastic situation concerning the future of Edgware general hospital. I am not commenting or complaining about the fact that I have not received a reply—I am sure that you are very overloaded with work, Madam Speaker—but I wonder whether I may press that point further by way of a point of order, and raise the matter briefly, either now or at 3.30 this afternoon, at your discretion.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not raise the matter now. I am sure that he has been in the House long enough to know that the Speaker does not respond to applications under Standing Order No. 20 or applications for private notice questions unless the response is positive.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allocating time for this important debate. It has been sought by an informal group of Members working together on a cross-party basis, as a way of highlighting Earth summit II and the issues with which it is concerned.
It is fair to give notice of the fact that, if the members of the informal group are re-elected, which we fully intend to be, we shall continue to be active on the subject after the election—reinforced, I hope, by the increasing number of people, including other Members of Parliament, who see sustainable development as the central issue of our time.
Nothing could be more important than the cluster of issues brought together under the term "sustainable development"—the maintenance of a healthy environment, which is the basis of all our prosperity and success, as well as of all our cultural and spiritual fulfilment, and the issue of social and global equity regarding the satisfaction of human needs.
Those two themes convey what sustainable development amounts to, and what Earth summit II—the United Nations General Assembly special session in June,

which is part of the Rio session—is about. Earth summit II offers us a chance to put new and much-needed urgency and impetus into the process.
We have been glad to receive assurances both from the Prime Minister and from the man whom I must describe as the likely next Prime Minister to the effect that whichever of them is elected to that office will attend Earth summit II. In his letter to me, the Leader of the Opposition said:
I certainly agree with you about the enormous significance of the event",
and the Prime Minister speaks in similar terms.
"Enormous significance"—that is strong language, and there is every justification for using it. We should make no mistake about the fact that sustainable development is a radically different way of organising the economy and society. I do not think that enough people have managed even to begin to comprehend that. Mainstream economists, politicians and the public at large have barely begun to understand the concepts underlying sustainable development, much less the means by which they can be given substance.

Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has been noteworthy throughout the argument, all over the world and within the United Nations, that the European Union has played a leading and united role in promoting those good causes? Is not strength through unity another example of the way in which the United Kingdom can play an efficient role within a united European Union?

Mr. Dafis: That is a useful intervention, and I emphasise the fact that the European Union has a potentially key role to play. It has prepared an enlightened and advanced position paper that stresses the importance of moving now to implementation—actual action—on sustainable development. The Rio process emphasises global and regional activity—that means European activity—as well as national and local activity. All those levels of activity have a role to play. There is an enormous task in providing basic education which has still to be done.
I can do no better than quote Klaus Topfer, the former chairman of the Commission on Sustainable Development and German Environment Minister, who is one of the great leaders in the global movement for sustainable development. He says:
We need a radical ecological structural change in the economy and society and the extension of economic and social systems to include the ecological dimension. We must alter our technologies and we must alter our behaviour. Our guideline in doing this is sustainable development. In a nutshell, this means: preserving our natural capital, preserving the branch we are sitting on. We can no longer afford to go on living beyond our natural means.
Taking that seriously, and treating the resources of the natural environment as capital, has far-reaching implications.
What progress has been made since Rio, where the countries of the world signed up to Agenda 21 and to sustainable development? Things have not gone well, and the world is now less sustainable—if anything—than it was in 1992. Poverty is on the increase, except in south-east Asia and the countries of the Pacific rim. Per capita income among 1.5 billion of the world's people has declined during the 1990s. The disparity between the


wealthiest and the poorest is becoming greater. Indicators of social development show a decline in many countries. Life expectancy is down in 32 countries, and the improvement in Latin America is negligible, as life expectancy there is far too low.
I wish to refer to the natural environment. Taking soil as an example, according to the Secretary-General of the UN, 10 per cent. of the earth's dedicated surface is at least moderately degraded. Water is emerging as a crucial environmental and resource issue for the next century, and it is projected that, by the year 2025, two thirds of the world's people will be living in countries suffering from water shortages.
Forest cover is being lost, and we are using non-renewable energy resources, at an alarming rate—that has serious environmental and social effects. There is a massive impact in extraction, transportation, processing and combustion. The use of fossil fuels has a massive effect. Energy consumption—mainly of fossil fuels—is up by 40 per cent. since 1973. The pressure from developing countries to increase energy use is intense: one has only to think of China and the huge implications of that country beginning to use its coal resources. Things are not going well in that sense.
What about the political process? The creation and implementation of policies to turn this matter around is important, and that is what the Rio process was supposed to achieve. Agenda 21 and the convention signed at Rio were supposed to contribute to this work. It would not be true to say that nothing has been achieved—one might say that the show is still on the road, and that is no mean diplomatic achievement.
In climate change, it is true that the show is still on the road, but progress has been painfully slow. In its response to the United Kingdom Government's position paper for Earth summit II, the World Wide Fund for Nature agrees that progress has been very poor, and gives examples. There has been no progress in implementing or funding the desertification convention. Neither in the convention on climate change nor in the biodiversity convention have we managed to agree a programme of actions or mobilise sufficient financial resources to implement their aims inside developing countries. The United States has not even ratified the biodiversity convention, to its eternal shame.
As far as the financial mechanisms are concerned—the global environmental facility is the key one—there is no clear strategic direction, and the GEF has a derisory budget, amounting to less than 0.004 per cent. of OECD GDP per annum. If one compares that with military expenditure worldwide—expenditure intended to ensure global security—one sees that it is absurd and grotesque. The best means of ensuring global security is to ensure sustainable development, and we need to put resources into it.
What is to be done at this time? First, we need to apply the political will with the greatest urgency to achieve sustainable development. I very much welcome the announcement by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that he intends to make the environment central to a Labour Government's foreign policy. That is very good. I hope it

will be central to a Labour Government's economic and social policy as well, but there is precious little indication of that.
However, to be positive, the statement by the shadow Foreign Secretary is seriously encouraging, and the task force he has put together has an impressive membership. If that kind of spirit informs the UK contribution to Earth summit II as part of a strong and serious EU commitment, that is good news.
What should we look for this year? The EU has produced an excellent position paper, although I hope that the EU means what it says—that does not necessarily follow. The paper states that Agenda 21 needs to complete the transition to the operational phase. That is an admission in itself, as it suggests that we need to start doing something, rather than talking about the theory.
What do we need to do? First, we need action in relation to key sectoral issues. Climate change is to be discussed at Kyoto at the end of the year, and a reasonable—or at least adequate—target is a 20 per cent. reduction from 1990 levels in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2005. Some say that that is unrealistic, but I would ask whether it is realistic to allow the climate to change as it currently is, bearing in mind the effect that that will have.
On forests, we need effective action linked to climate change and biodiversity. On fresh water—a very important issue—the EU calls for a recognition of the interaction between fresh water and soil erosion, demography and security of food supplies. These are terribly important issues, but there are others, including toxic chemicals, oceans and energy. But these specific sectoral issues will not be addressed unless certain key cross-sectoral themes are seriously tackled. The most important of these has to be finance for sustainable development in third-world countries, where the situation is appalling.
We have seen a decline in overseas aid from the developed world in GDP terms. There is profound disenchantment about the process in third-world countries, because the developed world has not begun to deliver. Private investment flows are increasing, but they are not geared to the poor countries or to sustainable development.
The commitment to 0.7 per cent. of GDP for overseas development aid targeted on sustainable development must be fulfilled by 2005—a reasonable target. We must move towards more debt cancellation, and there has to be a firm commitment to the replenishment of the GEF. I hope that we get that commitment this morning. But we also need new financial mechanisms, and an aviation tax on international flights—with the proceeds earmarked for sustainable development—is perhaps the most immediately feasible. The call for an intergovernmental panel on finance is a perfectly reasonable one, which I back.
The United Kingdom Government should go to New York with an unshakeable commitment at least to financial matters, because, if we do not get that right, we can say goodbye to sustainable development, and the consequences will be disastrous. It is a key foreign policy issue.
The link between sustainable development and trade must be taken seriously. By all accounts, the World Trade Organisation—the key organisation in this—is not doing so. Earth summit II should tell it that it has to take it seriously.
Sustainable consumption and production is another underlying cross-sectoral issue. I do not know whether all the other members of the group I have been working with would agree, but I believe that modern consumerism—the very engine that drives our economic system—is ultimately incompatible with sustainability. It is as if it were designed to impose stress on the natural environment that makes it possible.
Weaning ourselves off consumerism is a daunting task, but we have to begin the process. Two mechanisms are essential, and the first is new indicators of economic success. Progress there has been slow, and we need those quickly. We need a radical revision of our accounting system, and we need not only to develop the indicators but to use them to describe the extent of our economic and social success.
Secondly, the internalisation of environmental and social costs simply has to be faced. A glaring example where that is not being done, even remotely, is in transport. That requires a change in the basis of the taxation system, which we are beginning to talk about. A commitment about that should come out of the Earth summit. Of course, the constant need to include social equity must be borne in mind in doing so. One cannot internalise environmental costs unless one is concerned about social equity at the same time. Sustainability is about social equity and social inclusion as much as it is about the environment.
Much has been said about the international institutional structure to drive forward Agenda 21 and the whole agenda. Briefly, we need to renew and strengthen the United Nations Environmental Programme, which is important and has a key role to play. I hope to hear a commitment this morning to ending the suspension of UK funding to UNEP.
Secondly, the CSD has clearly shown itself to be a useful body. Mr. Topfer, the former chairman, said that we need it to become a sort of environmental security council. There is general agreement that it needs a more focused agenda, and the UN Secretary-General has set out a timetable for it leading up to 2002. I agree with WWF's suggestion about the need for a stronger and better resourced mandate for the CSD.
I look forward to hearing the response of the spokesmen on the two main Front Benches, as well as that of the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. We do not want to hear complacent self-congratulation from the Government, and I hope that we will not, although I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge the Secretary of State's important achievements in this regard. From Labour, we do not want a lot of electioneering and slagging the Government off. We want to hear clear signals that we regard Earth summit II as an historic opportunity to start a course of radical action globally, regionally and nationally at last to begin the transition to sustainability.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome this debate. It is good to see at least some hon. Members here, wishing to take part. I congratulate the hon. Member for

Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on his contribution, this morning and throughout this Parliament, on environmental issues. It is essential that some hon. Members are prepared continually to take up such issues, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. The way in which he opened his speech is important. He drew together all the strands of environmental destruction that are taking place, and underlined the importance of the Earth summit that is to take place later this year.
Frankly, the current rate of exploitation of the world's natural resources is totally unsustainable. The current process of economic planning and growth is leading to increased unsustainability, rather than greater protection for the world's natural resources. We have to change course—not just in this country, but worldwide—or we will be looking at total destruction within the next century.
Unfortunately, I do not suppose that environmental issues will be the main feature of the coming general election campaign. I wish that they would be, but unfortunately I doubt it. In some parts of the world, environmental issues are a major concern, and they ought to be here. They are a major concern where children are growing up in urban areas and suffering—as in London— from chronic asthma because of the use of fossil fuel-driven vehicles when electric vehicles would be better, or because of toxic waste dumping. They are a major concern for children growing up in west Africa, where toxic waste dumping on the beaches is routine as a way of evading European and north American regulations; or children growing up in shanty towns throughout Latin America and south Asia.
We have to deal with environmental issues and with the way in which people live, and, above all, the way in which we plan the future of the world. Although the Rio summit had many shortcomings, it at least recognised that there are limits to the growth that one can undertake and to the way in which we can exploit the world's natural resources. In that sense, it was a bringing together of all nations. Agenda 21, which came out of the summit, was extremely important.
The downside of the summit, however, was the side agenda that was not on the table at Rio. Closing down the UN office on multinational corporations, and the way in which western nations have cajoled third-world nations into supporting the general agreement on tariffs and trade, are leading to increased food dependency, world trade, pollution and environmental destruction for the poorest people in the poorest countries.
That shows the power of the mega-corporations of Europe and north America to squeeze the poorest people in the poorest countries. Increasingly, those issues will dominate political debate in the next 30 or 40 years, as the lack of natural resources for economic development in the northern countries becomes more apparent, and the dash for everyone else's oil, uranium, copper, gold, tin or whatever in the poorest countries comes to dominate politics.
There are signs of hope, however. This Parliament has at least signed the Antarctic treaty, which recognises that one cannot continue to exploit every section of the globe for ever. We have achieved the end of mineral exploration in Antarctica, and when all countries have finally got round to ratifying the treaty, we will achieve an environmental secretariat, which I hope will guarantee the


permanent protection of that important area for scientific research and peaceful exploration rather than the exploitation of its natural resources.
I mention Antarctica because it acts as a laboratory for the whole planet. By taking ice-core samples there, we can see what we are doing to the world's air quality, what pollution is taking place, the amount of lead being pumped into the atmosphere and the amount of nuclear waste being pumped into the atmosphere as a result of testing. We can see the effects of global warming, as glacier movements speed up and the rise in sea levels begins to become very apparent. Those issues are crucial to our long-term survival.
In Islington, I am the chair of our local Agenda 21 forum. Such forums have been set up throughout the country in response to the Rio summit, and they are very exciting affairs. Large numbers of people come to take part in serious discussions of how they can try to create a more sustainable environment in a heavily built-up urban area. My constituency is the most urban part of the United Kingdom, yet we have a determined group of people trying to ensure that we have a better environment for everyone in the community to live in, but above all, that we try to play our part in sustainable economic planning. However, that cannot be done on a solely local basis, and we cannot plan the traffic policies of the country as a whole or stop the Government building roads that force more and more cars into London. That has to be done by national economic planning.
A future Labour Government must support Agenda 21 initiatives, and, above all, bring people together regionally, nationally and internationally to ensure that there is coherent policy making. It is no good our arguing for better public transport within our community if, at the same time, the car and fossil fuel lobby is so successful that more roads get built and there is more pollution and damage to the environment.
We must consider the serious consequences of the process of rapid economic growth and exploitation of natural resources. Every time that a crisis appears, something is done. The damage done to the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbon emissions became apparent, and something was done, but an awful lot of CFCs were then offloaded on to third-world countries, and are still in use today.
The refrigeration industry in many parts of the world is still dependent on outdated ozone-damaging technology, partly because of the way in which western countries protected their technological advances during the GATT negotiations to maintain their pre-eminence, showing little concern for environmental damage in other parts of the world.
Deforestation emphasises the way in which we wantonly and ridiculously use and waste vast quantities of paper without even troubling to recycle it. Much paper ends up in landfill, and much is used to print totally useless advertising material in bulky newspapers. It is all very well to talk about recycling, but we should also talk about not using the paper in the first place. Levels of forest destruction are horrendous, and we will all pay the price.
Many people do their best to save and increase forests, but, if we tell a third-world country with serious poverty and unemployment that is finding it difficult to feed its

population that the only way forward is to build an export-led industry and destroy its natural resources to pay a totally unpayable debt to the west, we must accept that our trade and economic system is responsible for those mahogany trees being chopped down and that virgin forest being destroyed, never to be replaced.
We must also consider the way in which food and food production systems are developing. Many African and south Asian countries had a large degree of food self-sufficiency until 20 or 25 years ago, but GATT insists on a world free market in food, which means that the most powerful grain producers—basically, North America and to some extent Europe—can dominate, which leads to good agricultural land in the poorest countries being taken out of use, making those countries more dependent on what goes on in the west.
The British Government must play a role in GATT that encourages sustainable economic development. That does not mean an increase in ships passing each other carrying refrigerators one way and refrigerators the other, cars one way and cars the other; it means seriously considering the environmental costs of transporting consumer goods around the world that could be produced much nearer to home, and examining the question of food production, food dependency and the type of food that is being produced.
The thrust by the culture of the United States, in particular, for everyone to eat beefburgers is a major factor in the destruction of a large amount of forest land. Using agricultural land as pasture for beef cattle is of itself extremely wasteful of resources. We must seriously examine life styles as well as all the other factors.
I have asked many parliamentary questions of the Department of the Environment over the past year or so about climate change and global warming. If one looks at temperature levels historically, it is obvious that the problem is serious and that there is an accelerator factor: it is a question not of a 0.1 per cent. or a 0.05 per cent. increase over a given period, but of an exponential increase. Ice is melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, and sea levels are beginning to rise.
The implications of global warming are massive: not only rising sea levels and huge climatic changes but the creation of desert areas and the serious loss of food production capability in many areas. The situation is urgent: some Governments are committed to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, but they need to revise their estimates and bring forward the reductions, as well as considering seriously the implications of economic development elsewhere in the world.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North spoke of the problems of the growth of the consumer market in China. If a quarter of the world's population suddenly wants to have motor cars in the same proportion as even the poorest European country, there will be another 300 million cars on the road in a short time, and all the pollution that goes with that.
We should recognise that the people campaigning for a safer environment, be they opposing unnecessary road building in this country or forest destruction in other parts of the world, are all basically arguing for exactly the same thing.
Last year, I had the privilege of meeting some visitors from Ecuador, who explained the problems they are having with the destruction of the forest and mangrove


swamps, the way in which North American and European oil and gas companies wantonly destroy the environment in their mad dash to find more oil and gas to sell cheaply elsewhere, and the way in which the Government of Ecuador is constantly told by outside economic advisers that such exploitation is an economic necessity.
A briefing document on Ecuador says:
On a recent visit to Ecuador a US AID adviser on environment said that 'Ecology is a luxury for Latin America'".
In other words, Latin America should destroy everything it has as quickly as possible, and hang the consequences.
However, many people in the poorest areas of the Amazonian region of Ecuador are determined that that should not happen. They want a sustainable life style to continue, and they do not want forests to be destroyed and rivers polluted. They want a sustainable economic system in their country, as many of us do in many other parts of the world, but they cannot achieve that alone, because of the power of market forces from around the world and because of the way in which Ecuador is told that the way out of its economic problems is to export more goods, destroy its natural environment and exploit its natural resources as rapidly as possible.
I look forward to significant changes in Government policy in this country when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) becomes the responsible Minister, and above all to the ability of ordinary people to say that they want a sustainable world, not one that it is busy destroying itself. It is possible to achieve sustainability, but not if we predicate everything we do on the myth that rapid economic growth and consumerism can solve all the problems. There need to be fundamental changes in attitudes. At least this debate gives us an opportunity to say something about that.
I only wish that the general election campaign was going to be dominated by crucial environmental issues. If this one is not, future elections will be. It is wrong that our children suffer from asthma throughout urban Britain because of air pollution, that the rivers of Latin America are being destroyed by industrial waste, and that mammals that have existed for far longer than human beings are being destroyed because we cannot be bothered to live with the environment, but instead try to exploit it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: We have been faced with serious challenges since the Rio summit, with continuing global environmental destruction. I do not want explore the full range of issues, which have already been covered by previous speakers. I want to keep my remarks short to allow others to comment.
Perhaps the greatest and most intractable problem has been the financial resourcing of our commitments to achieving environmental and social sustainability. Finance is likely to be at the centre of debates at the UN General Assembly special session in June, the so-called Earth summit II, and will be fundamental to its success.
The need of developing countries for external funds is as great as it was in 1992. Since then, forests have continued to be cleared, wetlands have been further destroyed, and the earth's biodiversity has been substantially further eroded. In too many cases, this is not through wilful neglect but because many developing countries lack the resources to pursue more sustainable forms of development.
I visited Brazil two years ago to see construction on the Amazon. One key problem was the poverty of farmers who cleared land in a desperate attempt to grow the food they needed, which led to the early destruction of that land, for which their agricultural techniques were inappropriate. They have neither the information nor the training to make better use of their resources.
Another key problem was the inability of the Brazilian Government to fulfil their commitments, not least because they cannot afford the immensely difficult task of policing their policies effectively. Similarly, when the Environment Select Committee visited Thailand and Malaysia, it found the same problems: there were difficulties with tackling illegal logging, let alone getting policies right in the first place. Continued economic pressures hit Governments' ability to tackle the problem.
The developed countries have not fulfilled their commitments at Rio to provide new, additional resources. Official development assistance fell from a peak of £62 billion in 1992 to around £53 billion in 1995. The £3 billion pledged to the global environmental facility since 1992 has not come close to making up the shortfall, let alone meeting the increased need identified at Rio. If developing countries are to remain committed to the ambitious agenda agreed at Rio, and it is imperative for all our futures that they do, we must demonstrate at Earth summit II that we are prepared to live up to our financial commitments and ensure that adequate financial resources are available.
The developed world has only 20 per cent. of the world's population, but consumes 80 per cent. of the world's resources. That level of consumption is already leading to the destruction of the global environment. If the developing world follows our path of wasteful consumption, the destruction will accelerate fivefold. As we have been the beneficiaries of the destruction up to now, no one should argue that we should not bear a fair share of the cost of putting it right. That means a majority share, including helping the developing world to avoid the path that we have so destructively followed.
An incoming Government, of whatever colour, will face two immediate challenges, both of which are opportunities to make their mark on the environmental political scene. On 2 May 1997, negotiations will begin on replenishment of the global environmental facility. We must argue vociferously for an increase in funding from developed nations. That would send a clear signal of co-operation to developing nations before the Earth summit, and will make it far more likely that we can achieve the necessary progress.
The second challenge is a UK one: to make a commitment to meeting the aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product within 10 years. Only the Liberal Democrats of the major parties are costing that into their pledges for the general election. Before the manifestos are launched, I urge that the other parties do so as well. The Government's commitment stands at only 0.28 per cent. of GNP, which has fallen from the 1980–84 average of 0.37 per cent. The cuts must be reversed, or we will share the vastly larger costs of environmental destruction and climate change.
The cuts are a practical obstacle to solving the developing world's environmental problems, but, even more important, they are a major psychological block to winning co-operation from the developing world in setting


the necessary targets and strategies at the Earth summit. At the same time, the quality of aid must be improved. Although progress has been made, all too often aid continues to focus on large-scale, technology-intensive projects, rather than small-scale, sensitively planned projects that yield environmental and social benefits to the communities involved and further the aims of the Rio agreements and subsequent conferences.
Although international private investment has grown dramatically since 1992, the bulk of it goes to a handful of fast developing countries, hardly any of which are among the least developed. Almost three quarters of foreign investment in the developing world goes to only nine countries.
In any case, we should have no illusions that private finance is a panacea. Private funds are driven by market imperatives, and will not automatically deliver public goods such as environmental sustainability or the elimination of poverty. Because they are driven by an economic priority set largely in the developed world for goods that we continue to waste and with which we destroy the environment, they are even more destructive in countries where they bear little relation to the needs of communities. There will remain a substantial need for public funds, and for private finance to be regulated to ensure that it is consistent with those aims.
I recognise that public spending in the developed countries is under domestic and international pressure. Conventional development assistance budgets will never be able to provide sufficient funds to meet demand. That is why debates have started at the Commission on Sustainable Development about new ways of generating funds, such as new international taxation. Liberal Democrats want more debate in Britain about how to progress along the route of environmental taxation.
A charge on aviation fuel on international flights is one currently mooted proposal, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). We should push that up the agenda in our international negotiations. However, it needs international agreement and co-operation to achieve action. We cannot go it alone, but that is all the more reason for the UK to take a leading role in arguing for it.
The time is ripe to make swift progress on the issue, because the EU is to consider at the end of 1997 the expiry of the exemption of aviation fuel from excise duty. The money raised could be channelled back into the global environment facility to promote the aims of Agenda 21 and other Rio commitments in the developing countries. Much global environmental damage could be avoided and substantial funds raised for environmental protection, and not only in developed countries. That could be done with funds that currently subsidise operations that actively damage the environment.
The Worldwatch Institute has estimated that Governments worldwide subsidise environmentally damaging activities, such as over-fishing, and excessive road transport and coal production, to the tune of more than $500 billion a year. It is vital that we start working out how to eliminate those subsidies and put them to better long-term sustainable use.
Non-governmental organisations working in the field suggest that a new forum may be need to facilitate debate and political consensus on new ways of financing

sustainable development. An intergovernmental panel on finance, situated in the Commission on Sustainable Development, is their preferred option. We should consider that seriously, and I hope that the Minister will say that the British Government will it give their encouragement and consideration. The CSD could also have more formal links with key international financial bodies such as G7 and the World bank. That would help to put sustainability at the heart of the world's most powerful financial and economic centres.
All funds in all countries need to be not only used in the way intended but seen to be used as such. That will happen only when we have proper accountability of funds and full transparency. Far greater efforts are needed to eliminate corruption and make sure that social and environmental priorities remain paramount. That is a matter in which the British Government, while they may have their faults at home, have considerable expertise, which, as well as practical help, they can offer to countries around the world.
Much was achieved at Rio five years ago, but an awful lot still needs to be done. Over-consumption in the north and population growth in the south are combining to put huge pressure on the dwindling stock of natural resources and on the earth's ability to absorb pollution. The developed world contributes disproportionately to those problems, so we must disproportionately take on the burden of overcoming them. We must help developing countries to develop in a more sustainable way than we have done, at the same time as we put our own house in order.
We should never think that developing countries are not concerned about the environment. Polls show that people in countries such as Brazil and Poland are as concerned about the environment as people here. But people in such countries have far fewer resources and far less room in their economy to tackle the problems. That means, at the very least, that Britain must meet our internationally agreed targets for financial support.
The optimism and consensus of Rio show that the world knows what needs to be done. We must not let it break down in bickering about who does what. Britain must show that we are willing to play our full part, and that, having identified the problems, we will take our role in finding the solutions.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I begin with two sets of congratulations. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on obtaining the debate. The issues he raises go far beyond party divisions or the commitments made in any of the party manifestos. They are the biggest challenge to our society and civilisation, and political parties have yet to face up to them.
On a smaller scale, I ought to pay tribute to the Government. At least they have met one of the obligations on funding for biodiversity. It is new and additional funding. However, we must put it in context and view it on its proper scale. It is like to trying to find enthusiasm about the receipt of a new pair of laces when someone has stolen one's shoes. It is the theft of shoes that I want to talk about.
The world that confronts us now is poorer than it was in 1992. There are more poor people in the world. The gap between rich and poor is wider. The rate of depletion


of our fish resources and forests is accelerating faster. It is running away from us. All the small contributions that are being made are dwarfed by movements in the opposite direction. They are cynically dwarfed by the amounts of money that go into the arms trade, but no less cynically by our active part in the accelerating investment in exploitation.
There is no point in our saying in the House that we want a few more million or perhaps even a billion pounds to go into development aid, when we refuse to close the door on unsustainable trade. That is the heart of the contradiction that the industrial world has to face. It is enshrined in the absurdities of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The recent treaty presented a new deity to the economic world. It suggested that the pursuit of unregulated free trade would be to the general benefit of humanity, whereas in fact it is the greatest threat to humanity.
Three main proposals have come out of discussions at European level to promote serious alternatives to a deregulated view of the world, which can only accelerate the depletion of our natural resources and pose real threats to the sustainability of not only our life but all life forms on the planet.
The first proposal is that we have failed to do anything to check accelerating consumption in the industrial world. The nature of that acceleration does not make sense. Almost 60 per cent. of the foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom are products that we could produce ourselves. There is no costing of externalities in global trade. We import green beans 6,000 miles from Kenya. We import apples from South Africa.
We are a net importer of parsnips, which travel 11,500 miles from Australia. I have to confess that, when I was a child, there were times when we kids used to pray that my dad would not bring in any more bloody parsnips from the garden. There are only so many parsnips that one can know and love at any one time. For Britain to be a net importer of goods that we can produce ourselves seems the height of folly, and it is all for the sake of getting goods into the supermarkets a week or a month earlier, irrespective of the social and environmental cost.
I marvel at the fact that we subsidise the over-use of pesticides, fertilisers and growth hormones in agriculture, all of which make their way into the food chain and the water chain, make the land water-hungry, and add to the momentum of increasing water shortages. By 2025, two thirds of the world's population will face water shortages. We also subsidise non-production. Set-aside is Britain's second biggest agricultural industry. The one thing that we will not subsidise is traditional and organic farming— the sustainable methods of farming which have made societies stewards, not owners, of the planet, from one generation to another. We need to consider how to reverse that position.
Sustainability has to involve not simply aviation fuel taxation but measures to reduce food miles. A recent article explained that the average pot of yoghurt on a supermarket shelf would have travelled 1,000 km before it reached the hand of the purchaser. It seems crazy that so much unnecessary transportation is built into the way in which we over-consume. It would be extremely helpful if we tackled that problem.
We must re-localise production. That would also allow us to consider how we can deliver food guarantees. When staff in a supermarket are asked what has gone into the

produce on the shelves, with the best will in the world they do not know. The more we break the link between urban communities and the rural, farming hinterlands, the more food accountability is impossible in our pattern of consumption. The same applies to goods.
Instead of continuing to go along with the assumptions behind GATT, we need to argue the case for reversing them. In parts of America, states are beginning to say, "Site here to sell here. If you want access to our markets, you must be part of the terms of production which generate jobs. You must have accountable forms of production which we find acceptable." We cannot leave it to the public to achieve this by running their own consumer boycotts. As nation states, and as coalitions of nation states, we should be imposing ethical constraints on the nature of our assumptions about production, distribution and exchange.
That would allow us to return to the concept of local labour agreements. We used to be able to build those, not only into our domestic economic policies, but into our international aid packages, which included good labour agreements. All that is being stripped away in a regime that is dominated by global giants, whose interest in other people's economies is simply the interest of the locust.
There has to be an international dimension to this issue, and I want to try to set out a potential framework. We must challenge another part of GATT—the issue of patents and licences, which is almost GATT's sole protectionist element. Global corporations are now even seeking to patent trees in India because of their potential medicinal and curative properties.
We must reverse that attitude; we need a new gift relationship. I grew up believing that the best example of a gift relationship in this country was the blood transfusion service: we gave blood not on the banking assumption that we would get our own investment back, but so that there would be enough in the common pot to see us right in the event of an unforeseen accident.
For the next century, we have to have a new gift relationship—a technology gifting relationship, which donates sustainable technologies to the developing countries, so that they are not forced down the path of production processes that deplete resources for themselves and everyone else. If we can address that, we will begin to make life sustainable, not only in other parts of the planet, but in our own countries, for our own people and as stewards of our own environment.

Mr. Michael Meacher: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on having obtained this debate, and on the eloquent and reflective way in which he introduced it. It has been a valuable and wide-ranging debate—indeed, it has been one of the most interesting that I have heard for some time.
The environment will be a central issue for the incoming Government. That is why Labour has set up the green globe task force, which the hon. Gentleman applauded. It is a key issue, not only for the United Nations General Assembly special session in New York in June—the current Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has made it clear that, if elected, he will attend it as


Prime Minister—but for the Kyoto meeting on climate change in December and for the British presidency of the European Union in the first half of 1998.
The original Rio summit in 1992 was a mixed affair. It achieved two important legally binding conventions on climate change and biodiversity that were signed by more than 150 countries. It established a set of principles for the sustainable management of forests worldwide and it launched Agenda 21.
However, its weaknesses are equally obvious: no targets were set, so there is no measure of progress or backsliding. No one would disagree with the assertion that the action taken since Rio has not been nearly enough. Nevertheless, the key frameworks are in place: just as action on chlorofluorocarbons tightened progressively after the original signing of the Montreal convention in 1987, so it must tighten now on climate change and biodiversity.
Opinions divide sharply on what now needs to be done. For the wealthy nations in the north, sustainable development means conservation, energy efficiency, recycling and reversing global warming and ozone depletion; but for the poor countries in the south, it means equity, redistribution of wealth, transfer of technology and a fairer trading system. The fact is that both north and south need each other: the north needs the co-operation of the south to cut greenhouse gas emissions caused by mass industrialisation, but the south will not co-operate without a far more extensive programme of redistribution.
The north is right to be concerned about worsening degradation that seriously threatens the viability of the planet, even though the north is itself often the main perpetrator. Global warming, which will generate hurricanes, droughts, floods and severe crop losses across the world, is primarily driven by rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, which are set to double within the next century compared to pre-industrial times. Therefore, halting and ultimately reversing those excessive CO2, concentrations is a critical goal for global ecology.
On the key issue of climate change, Labour has set a target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon monoxide in the UK by 2010—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carbon dioxide."] Sorry, I meant to say carbon dioxide.

Mr. Corbyn: That is the heavyweight.

Mr. Meacher: Yes.
It is disappointing that the Secretary of State gave way at the European Union Environment Council a fortnight ago, and offered only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010. On his own boast, Britain has already achieved up to an 8 per cent. cut, largely because the Government have decimated the coal industry and engineered a long recession, so what he is proposing over the next decade is, in effect, a cut of a mere 2 per cent. or so, which is pretty feeble when Germany and Austria have offered cuts of 25 per cent. by 2010. We all know that the Secretary of State will bow out at the election, but his much-vaunted green leadership has fizzled out with a whimper.
We shall achieve our more ambitious target of a cut of one fifth by 2010.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: How?

Mr. Meacher: I am coming on to that.
We shall achieve it through policies that we already have in place. We are committed to an integrated public transport strategy, which is more environmentally friendly, in conjunction with pursuing a public-private partnership to develop a greener car, and a task force to advise on how best to achieve ultra-low emissions.
We are committed to promoting a big increase in renewable energy, with the objective of one fifth of our electricity being generated in that way by 2025. That will be achieved not least through an increase in the use of wind power: Britain has 40 per cent. of Europe's potential wind power—I must say, it sometimes feels like it—but we currently use less than 1 per cent. We are also committed to stepping up a national programme of energy efficiency measures.
I should make it clear that we do not support a carbon tax, because that would impact heavily on poor households, just as the VAT increase on fuel has done. It is important to note, although it is not often said, that such a tax would also bring comparatively little environmental benefit, because of the low elasticity of domestic demand. We believe that the same ends, on which we all agree, can be achieved through a more focused policy, via a changed regulatory regime for energy companies, improvements in building regulations, minimum efficiency standards for appliances, and measures to facilitate energy efficiency programmes by local authorities.
Trade and environment is another key issue that will feature strongly at the coming Earth summit. We believe that protection for the environment should be paramount in the development of a managed sustainable trading system, which means that international environmental treaties should be exempt from any challenge under the GATT/World Trade Organisation rules. That should include the Montreal convention on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Basel convention on hazardous waste, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, the biodiversity convention, and the climate change convention. They should all be protected.
We also believe that there is a strong case for extending the range of these paramount conventions—perhaps in the case of forests, certainly in the case of chemicals. About 100,000 chemicals are in commercial use, and their impact on human health and ecological function represents largely unknown risks. Highly toxic hormone-imitating chemicals such as DDT, the polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and alkylphenols have increasingly been leaching into aquifers and rivers worldwide and thence into the food chain, causing serious damage to the endocrine and reproductive tracts of mammals, including humans. Many people think that the dramatically falling sperm count in men is most likely to be due to oestrogen-like chemicals in detergents, plastics and other man-made materials.
We believe that what is needed at the UN in June is a binding convention that will reduce and eliminate those dangerous chemicals. That should be linked, in our view, to a prior informed consent procedure for international trade in all hazardous chemicals, 51 of which have been identified as hormone disruptors. The banning of those highly toxic chemicals—DDT is already banned—must not be subject to haggles over trade: they are environmental absolutes.
Action on forests is less advanced. Although we would, in principle, consider a convention on forests, it is doubtful, in the light of experience of the convention on desertification—mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—which has not been a great success, whether that is the most appropriate way to proceed. We might do better pursuing the same goals, which we strongly support, via bilateral agreements and consumer pressure.
As many of my hon. Friends have powerfully argued, the central problem at New York is likely to be that of reconciling the demands of the north with the huge needs of the south. Already, a fifth of the world's population— more than 1 billion people—lacks access to safe water, and half the world's population does not have safe sanitation. Every year, more than 5 million people die from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water or lack of sanitation.
Adding 3 billion people to the planet since 1950 has brought huge destruction of forests, devastation of grasslands, soil erosion, crowding, poverty, land hunger and growing water pollution. One can only imagine what will happen if 4.7 billion more people are added by 2050, more than 90 per cent. of them in the third world, as predicted by the UN.
The result is a growing divide of epic proportions. In the 1890s, the income of the average Indian was about half that of the average European. By the 1940s, the gap had grown to 1:40. It is now 1:70. Not only the poorest have suffered. World grain production, which has actually fallen by about 1 per cent. a year since the mid-1980s, has been falling fastest in the 40 poor countries containing a sixth of the world's population.
However, using a more realistic and comprehensive system of economic accounting, which takes account of the loss of natural topsoil and forest and productive grasslands, it could be argued that a majority of humanity suffered a decline in living standards in the 1980s. That is the task that confronts us.
How can the needs of north and south be reconciled? A reduction or write-off of debt for the most severely indebted countries might be linked to a commitment by them to preserve their rain forests and biodiversity. The damage to the environment caused by mass industrialisation in the developing countries would be reduced if the north made available the most advanced technology, especially clean coal technology. A forestry convention might suit the needs of the north, but the south's concerns over finance, which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) eloquently spoke to, and the issues of land ownership and a code of conduct for transnational corporations must be addressed at the same time.
When a quarter of the world's fisheries are already being exploited at maximum productivity and a third are over-fished, the north must accept that we need an intergovernmental panel on oceans with the same clout as the panel on climate change, to protect the oceans as a vital food source, as a carbon sink and as the home of some of the most diverse species on earth.
Those will be the central issues at the UN meeting, but other items will feature on the agenda, including tourism, which is fast becoming the world's largest industry. Of course everyone is in favour of it, because travel broadens the mind and people deserve holidays, but we need to make it sustainable and not spoil places that people want

to visit. Disappointingly, little has been done about that in the European Union, despite the fact that tourism is one of the five priority sectors listed in the "Fifth Environmental Action Plan." That may be another task for the British presidency.
On biodiversity, the next conference of the parties will take place in May 1998, during the British presidency, but, if I may say so to the Minister, a main priority is to set our own house in order in various ways, such as strengthening protection for sites of special scientific interest and safeguarding our hedgerows. The Department of the Environment has taken 17 years to designate 136 sites as special protection areas for bird conservation under European law; another 130 sites await designation. In response to the UN biodiversity convention, the Department has completed only 116 "action plans" detailing its efforts to conserve declining species; it still has 278 to prepare.
The UN special session is obviously important as a signal of political commitment, but perhaps we should not become too fixated on it. As others have said, the meeting in Kyoto of the Commission for Sustainable Development may prove more significant in the long run, as may the on-going work in the World Trade Organisation trade and environment committee.
As preparation for those meetings, there is already an extensive dialogue with non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. Labour will seek to build on that dialogue in government as we have in opposition. Unlike the present Government, we shall not be hampered by deregulatory dogma in responding to the concerns of NGOs and other stakeholders.
The Labour party stands ready, as a Government-in-waiting, to make progress on all the measures I have outlined, and to infuse a new sense of leadership and drive, which is much needed for the sake of our world.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on raising this subject and securing the debate, and I agree with him that the subject has central importance and needs the widest public understanding.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the United Kingdom preparations for and contribution to the UN General Assembly special session, which marks the fifth anniversary of the Earth summit in Rio. It is an important occasion for looking back at the achievements since Rio, and for charting the course for the next period. I shall seek to obey the injunction by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to look to the future as much as possible.
We are making every effort to ensure the success of the special session. The Prime Minister was one of the first Heads of Government to announce his intention to attend. At the end of 1996, my Department published a consultation paper, setting out its objectives for the special session and giving its views on the issues that urgently require the attention of the international community.
Since the Rio summit, sustainable development, in the sense that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North defined it, has been at the heart of the


Government's environmental economic policy, and we believe that the special session is an opportunity to persuade other countries that sustainable development should be the cornerstone of their policies too.
Much has been achieved since Rio, and the UK has played a leading role in pushing those successes through. The biodiversity convention has been negotiated, and action put in hand. In the United Kingdom, we have been the pioneers for the idea of national action plans for biodiversity.
We have been asked during the debate for targets. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other hon. Members know that we have, through our action plans, set out clear targets and measurable objectives. We have provided a model for others to follow, and many others are interested in the pioneering way in which we have approached biodiversity.
Another biodiversity success which the Prime Minister announced at Rio was the Darwin initiative, a bilateral aid programme; and last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the 1997 awards, to 32 projects in 26 countries, ranging from the conservation of marine turtles in Egypt to the revision of the Galapagos marine management plan.
We have heard a good deal today about the UN framework convention on climate change. We fully accept that we in the north have a special responsibility to take action on controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. Unless the richer nations take responsibility for dealing with the pollution that results from our development, we cannot expect other countries that are—rightly—seeking to raise their standards of living to take up their burden as well.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West attributed some importance to this subject, but he might have acknowledged more graciously that we come to the negotiations in Europe, and later in Kyoto, from a background of success in meeting our obligations—unlike many other countries. We are among a minority of industrialised nations in having met our obligations. We also have one of the best records among European Community countries.
At the discussions in Kyoto and in Europe, we must look ahead to targets that can be achieved by others, too. As the House will know, we have just secured agreement with our European partners to a target reduction of 15 per cent. by the year 2010, with appropriate burden sharing.
We believe it to be vital that Heads of Government in June send out a clear political signal that effective action is required when the convention parties meet at Kyoto in December. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said that the show is on the road as a result of Rio; we now need to make more progress.
I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that climate change is important. We have accepted the scientific advice that we have heard on the subject. Scientific opinion differs, but we have taken the side of what we believe to be good advice about the dangers. We look to other countries to follow our lead by reducing their emissions, so that we can ensure that the pace and extent of change are manageable. We will be pressing hard at the special session for new commitments in this area.
The hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised the question of tax on aviation fuel, which we regard as an important subject. The hon. Member for Truro rightly said that it needs to be dealt with at international level. We have been pressing for international action through the international civil aviation organisations convention. We believe that to be the right forum for dealing with aviation fuel tax, but we accept that progress in that forum has been slow. We are also, therefore, pressing for commitments at the Kyoto convention to action on aviation fuel tax.
There have also been many other institutional developments since Rio: the convention to combat desertification, and agreements on migratory fish stocks, on the protection of the oceans from land-based sources of pollution, and on the sustainable development of small island developing states. The establishment, funding and replenishment of the global environment facility was a great advance.
I can assure hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Truro, that the Government remain strongly committed to the global environmental facility, and we intend to play a positive role in the replenishment negotiations and to achieve a satisfactory replenishment. We come to the discussions from a background of being one of the major contributors to that facility—we are the fifth largest contributor, having put in £130 million. We are therefore punching our weight. We think that it is an important fund, which must be replenished and which will provide the links needed between the north and south.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the Commission on Sustainable Development. In its first five years, the commission has looked at the whole of Agenda 21, which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) discussed. In our view, the commission needs to concentrate its efforts on a limited number of issues on which it can make a distinct contribution.
The commission has already shown that it has a role to play in launching initiatives—for instance, setting up the intergovernmental panel on forests at the 1995 session. At the 1996 session, the decision on oceans showed that it can provide a lead in calling for improvements in the international institutional machinery for dealing with this pressing issue. We also see the Commission on Sustainable Development as a forum for inter-sessional meetings on the subject of finance—

Mr. Corbyn: What resources is the Department prepared to put into co-ordinating the excellent work done locally by Agenda 21 all over the country? The danger is that energies will be devoted to the local programmes, without co-ordinating them at a wider level.

Mr. Clappison: We have certainly given a lead; we have also given satisfactory support to local government finance in this respect. The very success of Agenda 21 locally shows that our approach to it has been successful.
In the United Kingdom, we have made great progress in bringing sustainable development principles into our national governing structures. Our annual reports on progress set out clear targets for action and explain the progress made against them. We have pioneered new ways of drawing together advice on sustainable development. Hon. Members will know of the work of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, and of the many other groups to which we have listened.
It is important to look ahead to necessary future priorities for UNGASS. Hon. Members mentioned the significant threats to a number of areas—for instance, the threat to fresh water, a most important subject. Deforestation is another problem that must be dealt with by UNGASS.
The Government certainly agree that action on forests is a priority. The UK has participated fully in the intergovernmental panel on forests, and welcomes its achievement in reaching consensus on a wide range of forest issues. Our task now is to ensure that agreed actions are implemented, and that international dialogue on sustainable forest management continues. At the special session, we will press for negotiations to begin on a forests convention, because we believe that a legal instrument is the best way to ensure comprehensive implementation of the panel's recommendations.
Hon. Members also mentioned poverty in the context of economic relations between north and south. We believe that the roots of poverty have still to be tackled in many developing countries. The world is still a long way from reaching sustainable production and consumption levels. Inevitably, methods of finance and technology transfer will be key issues for discussion at the special session.
The Government believe that, in general, financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 should come from a country's own public and private sectors. In this decade, external private sector investment in developing countries has tripled; it is now more than twice as great as development assistance. Aid naturally continues to be important, but it should be concentrated on the poorest countries. Our aid programme is targeted on the poorest countries in Asia and Africa, and is widely recognised to be of high quality.
We also think that private sector funding has an important role to play in technology transfer. Foreign direct investment offers the best opportunity for transfer of environmentally sound technology, provided that national environmental standards are in place. At UNGASS, we must move the debate forward to ensuring that new financial mechanisms and new opportunities for technology transfer are fully explored. We should not get stuck in debates on aid and technology transfer that bear no relation to changes in the real world.
In this respect, the development of new markets for trade and investment will be crucial. We regret that the WTO meeting in Singapore last December made such little progress on integrating environmental concerns into trade policy. We will continue to promote greater integration of environmental considerations in developing trade policies.
Another emerging issue which UNGASS must address is fresh water. In many parts of the world, the decline in the quantity and quality of fresh water is becoming critical. We support the development of a global framework convention on the uses of shared river basins to agree principles of application. Lack of clean water leads to disease and poverty; it also inhibits economic development. Unless we solve fresh water problems, we cannot expect sustainable development to become a reality. We need to take the same approach to ocean management, which we regard as equally important.
I have had time to mention only some of the subjects to be covered at UNGASS. We hope that world leaders will also deal with energy consumption, urbanisation and tourism—three problems that will have a large impact on development over the next five years.
I emphasise that we shall go to the Earth Summit later this year from a background of having fulfilled the obligations that we entered into at Rio. We have taken a lead in establishing those obligations and in following them through. The UK has a good record on meeting its obligations with regard to the important conventions on biodiversity and climate change, and on giving a lead to other countries. We have tried to take the approach of putting sustainable development at the centre of Government policy, where we believe it belongs and will continue to belong in the future.
We also believe in having an open debate on those important subjects, and listening to the views of, for example, the Round Table on Sustainable Development and other important pressure groups. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West when he said that he wanted to listen to NGOs' views, because there have been some interesting developments in that area. I hope that, in future, his policies in opposition will offer an open door to important pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth.
We believe that this is an important subject, in which Governments should give a lead. We shall continue to give such a lead.

Middle East Security

11 am

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is an enormous pleasure and privilege to initiate this important debate. It is the third debate that I have initiated on this subject in this Parliament and it is gratifying to see that there is interest across the Floor of the House. I hope that I shall be able to make the remarks that I want to make in a fashion that allows all those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to contribute to do so.
On my way to the House this morning, I was reminded of some advice given to me by my distinguished right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) some years ago, when he said that, if and when I came to the House, I should think about specialising. I had heard that from other people and, as a result of my membership, with my right hon. Friend, of the Transport Select Committee, people probably thought in my first two or three years that that was my main interest. However, as many people know, I have always had an interest in the middle east. Unlike my distinguished predecessor in Southport of 100 years ago, the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, who, after he was elected to Parliament, went off for two years under his own steam around the world to fact find, I spent my first two years nursing my constituency. I am pleased that I did so, because an election is coming up in a few weeks' time.
It is a great pleasure, towards the latter part of this Parliament, to raise these important matters, because we cannot have prosperity throughout the world unless we have peace and there is no doubt that a vital piece of the jigsaw in that respect is the middle east region. One immediately thinks of the problems between Israel and Palestine, which have existed for a long time. I have drawn attention to the progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine, but there is still an enormous amount to do. I pay tribute to the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the unique role that it and Britain as a whole have played in trying to bring about peace. Britain gives the largest share of aid to the Palestinians—some 16 per cent. of the European Union contribution. This country has a unique role to play in furthering the cause of peace in the middle east. I do not seek in this debate to oppose a European Union involvement, but I am at least a little suspicious of a Community-wide foreign policy.
In the first 100 days of the Netanyahu Government, I expressed concern that, all too often, Mr. Netanyahu was reacting to events rather than trying to set the tone for his period in office. All too often, we heard suggestions that he might have delegated the task of deciding what to do in the first 100 days to other members of his Cabinet. When one journalist tackled a leading Likud moderate on the issue, he said, "I know nothing about being tasked with the first 100 days' planning." In the last Israeli election campaign, we heard too much from senior Israeli politicians who said that they were against the Oslo accord, denounced Mr. Arafat and opposed the Hebron redeployment.
In office, Mr. Netanyahu in particular has realised that there is no alternative to the Oslo accord, meeting Mr. Arafat or the Hebron redeployment. However, I pay tribute to the Israelis for the 80 per cent. withdrawal and hope that those in the Arab world will give credit to Israel and its Government for that courageous move. I hope that we shall see further progress shortly.
I referred to the problems of the first 100 days of the Israeli Government, which is often a matter of public perception. The perception—it is my perception, too—is that Mr. Netanyahu may have met Mr. Arafat when he did only because of pressure from President Weizman, which is not necessarily a good thing. During the elections, Mr. Netanyahu took the view that the Oslo accord should be renegotiated but, now that he is Prime Minister of Israel, it is not tenable that Israel should be able to renegotiate while Mr. Arafat should stick to written agreements.
There must be give and take on both sides, and I have never doubted that land for peace was the way forward. Mr. Netanyahu must hold out further real hope towards the Palestinian people. He must make it clear that, if there is no terrorism, there can be no reason why more and more Palestinian workers should not come to work in Israel. They do not stay there; they often return home overnight, unlike many other migrant workers who stay on a permanent basis and cause difficulties in Tel Aviv.
Because of the impasse that we have reached, there has been an enormous cooling of relations, particularly with Egypt. I note, too, that Qatar, Tunisia and Oman have, to some extent, gone back on previous pledges on improving diplomatic relations between their countries and Israel. It is incumbent on those of us who are friends of Israel to make it clear that we want the existence of an Israeli state within secure boundaries, defending itself where necessary, internally and externally, from terrorism. However, we are not prepared to turn a blind eye to some sort of neo-imperialism or colonialism that shows contempt for the legal process and a refusal to accept that a Palestinian identity exists and must be recognised.
I underline the fact that I pay credit to Mr. Netanyahu for the 80 per cent. withdrawal.

Mr. John Gunnell: Given that those who are friends of Israel take the view, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) does, that land for peace is a good arrangement, should not they accept the importance of bringing pressure on Israel to accept that taking away land for the Har Homa settlement will not create peace, and may lead to a complete shutdown of the peace process?

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes his own point in his own way and I have some sympathy with it.
One of the most important friends of Israel is the United States. I referred to US policy in the middle east on previous occasions in this Parliament. In view of the changes of Defence Secretary and Secretary of State in the United States, with Mrs. Madeleine Albright coming into office, it is important that a second Clinton term in Washington does not allow things merely to tick over in the middle east. Given that Congress is rather right-wing, it is important that the British Government do what they can behind the scenes to bring pressure on our American friends to ensure that they play a full and proper part in bringing peace about, using the Oslo accord as a firm foundation. That is the impression that many of us have gained—too much ticking over and not enough action on the part of the United States in recent times.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to His Highness King Hussein of Jordan, who, in recent years, has had a remarkably difficult role to play, which I believe he has


played extremely well. He is a key player in bringing about peace between the various sides, and Britain must continue to give him our full support.
If time will allow, I should like to expand on other issues, but before I move away from Israel and Palestine, I want to make it clear that—given the interest in the debate and the fact that several other hon. Members want to take part—although I shall not cover in detail the importance of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, those are inextricably bound up in finding a solution to the problems to which I referred.

Mr. Michael Stephen: As my hon. Friend may know, I recently had the privilege of visiting Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Will he take it from me that the great majority of the people of all three countries wish only for peace? From time to time atrocities will be committed, such as the recent atrocity against the Jewish children in the Jordan valley, but does my hon. Friend agree that such atrocities committed by madmen or by religious or political extremists should never be allowed to throw the entire peace process off course?

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is an important point. It is recognised on all sides that the remarks made by people such as King Hussein have underlined the importance of his role.
I shall touch on two or three other trouble spots in the Middle East, to which other hon. Members might also refer in their contributions. I am particularly concerned about Iran, Iraq and Libya.
It is not acceptable for Iran to occupy the islands around Abu Musa and the Tunbs and to build serious gun emplacements. I pay tribute to the United Arab Emirates for the way in which they are trying to resolve that dispute, especially in relation to the International Court of Justice. I do not seek to isolate Iran. It is extremely important that she is not isolated, but the issue involving the United Arab Emirates must be addressed quickly.
With reference to Iraq and the recent difficulties, although we cannot interfere directly in the affairs of a state in the region, as has been wildly suggested by some, I hope that in the not too distant future the Iraqis themselves will replace the present regime, which ignores all its international obligations and brutalises its people.
Regarding Libya and our trade links, there are those who suggest, understandably, that British companies should no longer be prevented from competing for business. Nevertheless, there are serious issues, such as the gas factory that is being built and the question whether the Americans might bomb it. There are further issues, and I shall highlight just one. If Libya's peaceful intentions are to be recognised as real, we need an explanation of what she is doing. I have no doubt that the gas factory to which I referred will become an issue in the next Parliament.
Although there are trouble spots, there are a number of shining examples of the ability within the region to solve difficulties by peaceful means. I pay tribute to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for trying to broker an agreement between Bahrain and Qatar. Who would have believed last autumn, when we last debated the subject, that, almost over a cup of tea at a London hotel, some of the difficulties would be resolved? That meeting between the two sides in London went a long way towards resolving the dispute.
Elections have recently taken place in Kuwait, and the new Government are settling in. Enormous improvements to the Kuwaiti economy are evident. Moving in line with our own democracy, Kuwait has given a greater say to Kuwaitis through elections and the formation of a new Government. There is no doubt that the people have had their say, not always to the liking of the Al-Sabah ruling family, but that is a shining example of the way that things can be done in the middle east, if the right of self-determination in an Arab form is allowed.
Although that may be appropriate in one country, I recognise that it may not necessarily be so in another. On a recent visit to Bahrain, I was pleased to see the improved and enlarged shura council. Similarly, there are better relations between this House and its counterpart in Riyadh.
I have a particular concern about those who abuse our hospitality in London—dissidents who overstay their visas, and those who claim political asylum and are granted it by Britain, and then abuse our hospitality by supporting terrorist acts here and abroad. I very much hope that, within the laws of this country, the police will not hesitate to act and bring charges against those found to be overstaying their welcome or breaking our laws. As a specific example, it is not acceptable for demonstrations to take place in London, from whatever quarter, where death threats may be made but no arrests follow. If a British citizen chanted some of the things that have been heard on the streets of London, he would be arrested for at least a breach of the peace.
In view of the interest in the debate, I draw my remarks to a close, to give other hon. Members an opportunity to contribute. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Office for recognising over the years the good fortune that I have in my friendships with several ruling families in the middle east. For someone of my age, I have been hugely fortunate. I thank my friends in the middle east for the trust that they have placed in me. That has helped me as a Member of Parliament to understand the difficulties that we in Britain face in supporting our friends in the middle east to bring about further peace and prosperity.
I pay tribute to those in the Foreign Office not just for their diplomacy at British posts overseas, but for the work that they undertake in batting for Britain in a trade context. The middle east is important not only for world peace, but for British jobs. I know that over the years the Foreign Office and trade representatives overseas have played an extremely active part in helping British companies to win orders. I hope that, in the years ahead, they will continue to do so.
I have skated over, all too quickly, some extremely important issues. The debate is one of enormous importance, and I have no doubt that we shall return to these subjects fairly soon in the next Parliament.

Sir David Steel: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) and thank him for his initiative in raising the debate before we close this Parliament.
I came into the House exactly 32 years ago this week as the baby of the House, and I am now ready to depart. My maiden speech was all about the problems of the Scottish Borders, which had been the subject of my


by-election campaign, but as I have—to use a good Scottish word—deeved the Scottish Office on that subject endlessly over recent weeks, I am glad to make my last speech to the House on a different and important topic— the middle east peace process.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman on wider issues in the middle east; otherwise, I should make too long a speech. I want to cast my mind back over events that have taken place in the middle east in which I have been involved, and to say a few words about how I hope policy may evolve in the future.
Over the past four years, I have not been as regular an attender in this place as previously. As president elect and then president of Liberal International—I totted up recently the number of visits that I made to other countries in those capacities—I visited no fewer than 56 countries, some of them more than once. This announcement will not surprise my hon. Friends, who seemed to think that I was permanently in an aeroplane. I was concerned with promoting democracy, human rights and economic development. Over the past three decades during which I have been a Member of this place, however, nowhere has there been a greater consistent threat to peace than in the middle east.
In 1967, I was fortunate to be a member of the annual parliamentary delegation to the United Nations when that distinguished representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, was largely instrumental in having resolution 242 drafted and passed at the UN. It is my view that that resolution has remained the bedrock of a policy that has been supported by successive British Governments and by the global community in its attitude to the middle east peace process.
It was not until 1980, when I was the leader of the Liberal party, that I took a delegation to the middle east. On that occasion I spent two weeks in the region. I had the good fortune as a party leader to be received, with my delegation, by the various Heads of Government. It was a fascinating process to meet President Sarkis of Lebanon, President Assad of Syria, who continues to be president of that country, the late President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein in Jordan, for whom, like the hon. Member for Southport, I have considerable admiration.
The one Head of Government whom I did not meet was in Israel, and there was a clear reason for that. I had earlier met Chairman Arafat, as he then was, in Syria. Nowadays everyone meets Mr. Arafat, and very happily, on the White House lawn or anywhere else. In 1980, however, it was thought outrageous that a party leader in Britain should shake hands with that unknown person. When I went to Israel I was not received at any high level by the Israeli Government. I met Opposition leaders, however, and I got to know Shimon Peres.
During my time in Israel—I have been there several times since 1980—I came to understand the geographical fragility of the state of Israel and its need for long-term security. Indeed, I have never doubted that need. The great breakthrough came undeniably during the Government of Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres with the Oslo accords. It must be a great sadness to us all who have watched events in the middle east over the years to see that peace process running into the sand under the change of Government in Israel.
One of my friends in the former Israeli Cabinet told me that he regarded Mr. Peres as a great statesman and a hopeless politician. It is usually the other way round, in that we regard people as good politicians and hopeless statesmen. There was some truth in my friend's judgment, however, and it was unfortunate that by his mistiming Mr. Peres lost power. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu, with his rather reactionary views on the peace process, came to power.
What can we do as part of the outside community? At this stage I must disagree with the hon. Member for Southport that we in the European Union have a responsibility towards the middle east peace process. I believe that my view is shared by the Foreign Secretary. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about a developing common foreign policy in the European Union. I believe that it is a healthy process. We have an opportunity in terms of all-party early-day motion 657, which relates to the Lebanon. Given the present agreement between Israel and the European Union, we have a unique and new position of influence in the middle east, and one which we should use. We should not be dependent all the time on the so-called superior power of the United States in these matters.
In terms of the current settlement proposal in occupied east Jerusalem, it is a matter of deep regret that the American Administration used its veto in the Security Council. The wrong signal was sent to Israel. I know that the Minister has described that as a disagreement over tactics rather than one of substance. He may be right about that, but that is not how it is perceived in the middle east by those who represent both sides of the argument.
The United States Administration made a grievous error and I hope that we and other members of the Security Council will constantly remind it of that. We do not want to see any repetition of such an error. The outside world must stand together if we are to ensure that the peace process moves on.
Over the years, I have come increasingly to the view that security cannot be found through military means alone. Security will not be provided for Israel if the occupation of southern Lebanon continues. It does not provide security for Israel or its Arab neighbours to acquire vast amounts of weaponry from the outside world.
In 1993, together with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), I went to Uganda to try to ascertain what could be done in arguing for debt relief for that country. I pay full tribute to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the steps that they have taken at the International Monetary Fund to help establish a programme of debt relief for Uganda.
I noted recently, however, that defence expenditure by Uganda, while debt relief has continued, has increased from 13 per cent. of its budget in 1993 to 20 per cent. now. What is true of Uganda is true, unfortunately, of many other countries, especially those in the middle east. Peoples who are in need of development within their countries see their Governments forced, in the interests of what they believe to be security, to spend an increasing proportion of their budgets on arms.
Over the three decades that I have spent in the House, there have been many acrimonious and intense debates about the spread of nuclear weaponry and about nuclear disarmament in its various shapes and guises. Yet no one has been killed by nuclear weapons since the end of the


second world war. Unhappily, in the world today, thousands of people are killed each week by conventional weaponry.
The arms trade is one of the great evils that the world faces. I am talking about all types of weaponry and not only land mines. Those of us who are interested in real security for human beings must make the conventional arms trade a subject of greater public debate than it has been. There is no greater hypocrisy in the world today than the readiness of the developed nations, east and west, to supply weaponry throughout the world and then wring their hands the moment that weapons are used.
I came upon an interesting statistic recently that reflected on the first world war. War memorials in this country and in others bear huge lists of names of those who were slaughtered during that war. Ninety per cent. of the casualties in the first world war were members of the armed forces and nowadays 90 per cent. of casualties of conflicts are civilians—women and children. The nature of conflict has changed. We must recognise that the arms trade fuels conflicts. Indeed, conflicts could not take place if it were not for the arms trade.
I do not suppose that in the coming election the arms trade will be a matter of great moment. It is not a matter of division between the parties. I hope, however, that in the heat or noise of the battle to come we shall not lose sight of some wider issues that are crucial to the future peace of our globe and to the future development of the growing population. I refer especially to the younger generation both in the United Kingdom and in the middle east.
With those words I shall take my leave of the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: When I glanced at the Order Paper this morning and noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) had secured this debate, I little thought that I would have the great privilege, largely thanks to my hon. Friend's self denial in making a short speech, of taking up the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who represents what I call the border trinity, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
The right hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished Member of the House for a very long time—indeed, 32 years. There is no Member of this place who has more justly deserved the title of right hon. Member. It is fitting that a number of his Liberal party colleagues, a party which he led with great distinction, should be in their places this morning to hear his short but wise speech. Although this Chamber will be deprived of his wisdom and counsel in future, I hope that I will not be accused of being too provocative if I express the hope that Parliament will not be so deprived—

Sir David Steel: Is that an offer?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I can express a hope; I cannot, alas, bestow a gift. I believe that he still has an enormous amount to offer, and although he will want to spend more time enjoying the border solitudes that he so rightly loves, Westminster needs his contributions. I trust that we shall continue to get them even if they are from another place.
I understand, from his rather frenetic activity, that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is likely to seek to catch your eye in the near future,

Mr. Deputy Speaker. He, too, is due to make his dowager speech—I suppose that that is the opposite of a maiden speech. I know that the House will look forward to hearing him.
I did not know who would seek to take part in the debate, but I was anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is fitting, in the closing hours of this Parliament, for the House to turn its attention, in a bi-partisan capacity, towards the middle east. Although all the topics touched on by my hon. Friend in his admirable and lucid speech are important, what is surely uppermost in all our minds today are the events taking place in Jerusalem at the moment.
I am proud to call myself a friend of Israel, and I wish to see Israel with recognised secure borders, as my hon. Friend said, but if I am a friend to Israel, I am a friend to peace first, and what is happening in Jerusalem at the moment is jeopardising the chances of peace in the middle east. I appeal—carrying, I hope, the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—to the Prime Minister of Israel to think again. In his high office, Mr. Netanyahu carries with him the hopes and fears of people all over the world.
I appreciate that it is not easy to hold together an uneasy coalition. Indeed, in recent years some in Israel have paid with their lives for their political courage, in particular Prime Minister Rabin. No price is too high to pay for peace. Mr. Rabin knew that: he paid it. His successor worthily donned his mantle and fought for peace in the middle east, recognising that when one fights for peace it is always necessary to compromise, and when one compromises, no one is wholly satisfied. There is, however, a goal that is above personal satisfaction, and it is crucial that Mr. Netanyahu recognises that.
What happened at Oslo was of crucial importance. It set in train a series of events that brought, for the first time, true hope of lasting peace to the middle east. That hope is now at risk. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who speaks for the Opposition, will link themselves with my remarks and will appeal to Mr. Netanyahu to recognise that, if he persists with what he seeks to do, not only will he be unleashing bulldozers on a hill in Jerusalem, but he will be putting a metaphorical bulldozer through the prospects for peace. He has a duty to the country of which he is the Head of Government; he also has a wider duty to everyone in the middle east.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred to the yearning for peace. Mr. Netanyahu has a duty to everyone beyond the middle east who sees it as a potential cauldron from which world conflict could still erupt to try to ensure that the peace process is put back on track. Only this week, he was given a lead and an example by His Majesty the King of Jordan who, in the wake of that appalling tragedy, which brought back memories of Dunblane—almost on the anniversary of Dunblane—went and grieved with the grieving and mourned with the mourning. He went not only as a Head of State but as a human being, saying, "These things are more important. Let us, for goodness sake, sit down and work together."
If Mr. Netanyahu persists with his ambitions for the building project in Jerusalem, he is, whether he intends it or not, spurning the gesture of peace from the King of


Jordan. If Mr. Netanyahu does that and persists with a narrow nationalism, he will jeopardise the future of his country far more than he will jeopardise the future of his Government by ceasing to appease the more nationalist members of it and those who support it.
In what I suppose will be my last speech in this Parliament—I trust that I might be able to make one or two in the next—perhaps I might be allowed to say this to Mr. Netanyahu: "The eyes of the world are upon you, and although the British Parliament is moving towards dissolution and begins to focus on a general election, nevertheless we do not neglect our responsibility as British legislators wanting to play our part in creating a true and lasting peace. We appeal to you to make that task possible by backing off from the course on which you have embarked, the end of which can be only disaster for you and your people."

Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for initiating the debate. I intended to intervene in his speech but could not find anything much with which to disagree. It was the first time that he has spoken in the House and I have agreed with him. I thank him for that, and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few final words.
My first words in the House were some 27 years ago, in defence of the rights of the people of Leicester, North-West—which has now become Leicester, West— following my father, who served that seat for 25 years. It is the first hereditary Labour seat in this House, and it will maintain its right to vote to the last breath. I am so sorry that there will be no Janner available for the people of Leicester in the future. I thank them so very much for their kindness to me, for voting for me and for allowing me to serve them for so long.
This is another subject with which I have been deeply connected, both as a proud Member of the House and as a proud Jewish leader. I am glad to be able to speak immediately after my hon. Friend—he is both honourable and my friend—the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), with whom I have fought many human rights battles. I pay tribute to him for his service in the House.
When listening to the debate, I wondered just how much people understood of the pressures that are on Mr. Netanyahu. I have spent the past 18 years trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of the Conservative Government, and I am not very good at getting rid of the Governments of other countries. I did not vote for this lot in here and would not have voted for that lot over there, but we have to understand what Prime Minister Netanyahu has achieved. He went into an election saying, "No land for peace," and he broke his election manifesto promise. Conservative Members should understand that—although he did it for good reasons. He did so at a price: alas, the price is now being paid to members of his unruly Cabinet concerning matters in Jerusalem. I do not disagree with the points that have been made, but we must understand the political balance in a vibrant, vehement and difficult democracy. In that part of the world, it is almost alone in that.
I have been privileged to visit almost all the Arab countries that are happy to accept a Jewish visitor, and one or two that usually are not, such as Saudi Arabia. I have

been received with great courtesy, and I hope that I have played some part in the continuing peace process. The greatest moment of this aspect of my life was when I attended Oslo, not for the agreement, but when Prime Minister Rabin, Foreign Minister Peres and President Arafat jointly received the Nobel peace prize. Rabin was my friend, and he was a great man. Shimon Peres is my friend, and I value him and am deeply attached to him, his philosophy and his person. Arafat I have become friends with, and I hope so much that the peace process will continue.
I am one of only two or three people in the House who speak Arabic. I am the only one who speaks both Hebrew and Arabic, unless the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has been learning to speak them in his long periods away from the House during this Session. What matters to me is that we can converse, communicate and understand each other. I am not sure how much good it does to lecture Prime Ministers of other countries about how they should do their job, when we are so desperately unsuccessful in getting the Prime Minister of own country to do his as we want him to, but it is the privilege of democratic friends to try. It is a privilege that we have exercised to its full.
It is a privilege to serve in this House. It is a privilege that I shall miss dreadfully. I am grateful to hon. Members, to Ministers and to members of the Foreign Office team, with whom I have often disagreed, but who have done so much for me so courteously. I thank them all, and I bid farewell by saying how deeply appreciative I am of the privilege that I have enjoyed for so very long thanks to the good people of Leicester, West.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I was greatly moved by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), because if there was ever an issue-cause politician, he is it. I remember his maiden speech and that of my right hon. Friend—I shall call him that—the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) when he was the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I was moved by what he had to say also.
I shall be crisp. I have had 10 debates on Libyan sanctions, but the Minister will be relieved to know that I just want to make two new points.
First, will the Government reflect on what happened in the St. Albans Crown court in the case of Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe? Judge Colston said:
In my judgment, the material which has been disclosed today indicates that there was within the Department at the material time concerns about the application of relevant sanctions legislation, and the way that it was being applied by the DTI.
Why did Judge Colston stop an important case and describe the actions of the Department of Trade and Industry as an "affront to justice"?
How much did the case of Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe cost the public in preparation and lawyers' fees?
Lawyers told the Department of Trade and Industry of their massive concerns about inconsistencies in the application of sanctions against Libya. Will the Government disclose the relevant documents to Parliament? Do Ministers agree that there is cause for urgent public concern?
Does this matter not fly in the face of the rigorous implementation claims? I refer to the answer given to me when I asked
the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with the US Government on Libyan sanctions, and the cases of British nationals who have allegedly transgressed UN sanctions.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) replied:
I have been asked to reply.
We regularly discuss UN sanctions against Libya with the US Government. Both Governments remain committed to the rigorous implementation of the sanctions until Libya has complied fully with UN Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748.
Any contravention of the legislation implementing these sanctions in the UK is a matter for the competent prosecuting authorities."— [Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 150.]
In one sense, it seems like Matrix Churchill revisited, but I come from a different direction on the whole business of Libyan sanctions. The people who really lose are those in British industry, because Libya was one of our traditional markets.
I do not doubt that Libya did bad things in the early 1980s when it supplied arms to the IRA. It is questionable whether it was responsible for the terrible murder of Yvonne Fletcher, but I am certain, for reasons that I have endlessly outlined to the House, that it was not responsible for Lockerbie, which is the immediate cause of sanctions, which deeply harm one of our traditional markets, where most of the decision makers were educated at British universities and not at American universities. I believe that we make a mistake by following America's lead on Libyan matters.
Secondly, I want to ask about Iraq. To demonise the leadership, rightly or wrongly, is hardly a mandate to punish the whole population. Unfortunately, that has been the fate of the Iraqi people since the imposition of a draconian sanction in 1990.
I want to ask about Ambassador Ekeus's mission. The special commission was established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme. Ekeus has since expressed a reluctance to define a programme of completion, and to provide a proper framework of inspection.
Regrettably, earlier this month, Ekeus was forthright in stating without reservation or remorse that Iraq may be developing or acquiring a long-range missile capability. Paradoxically, Iraq, before and during the Gulf war, was in possession of a sizeable arsenal of chemical weapons, but failed to use them. Incidentally, the technology and materials for those lethal weapons were sold to Iraq by all the countries that are permanent members of the Security Council.
If Ekeus and his team were diligent in their task, surely they would have come up with more confirmed reports. There is no "maybe" about it. One wonders whether they are aware of the commonly known fact that Iraq's economy is mortgaged for generations to come: its whole infrastructure is in tatters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale visited Iraq with Bishop Tom Butler, the Bishop of Leicester. He is nodding because he knows, as I do, what the terrible situation is on the ground. To embark on such a mammoth advanced technological programme, Iraq must have free access to the necessary financial and technological means.
Furthermore, the weakness of this statement by Ekeus may lie in his commission team's lavish life style in a ghetto created in Iraq, totally unaffected by the tragedies evolving around them, engulfed in the unrelated pursuit of historical site visits and acquiring antiquities and valuable antiques by the advantage of the strength of the US dollar—the dollar was equal to 1,300 dinar—in other words, stripping whatever is left of Iraqi national heritage.
One of the saddest experiences in the human tragedy was to go to the famous Iraq museum in Baghdad, and see how the great treasures of Sumeria and the earliest civilisations of the Tigris and the Euphrates had been treated. I believe—I have heard the same from museum personnel who are unconnected with politics—that it is disgraceful that people who are supposedly serving the United Nations are bringing home, either for themselves or for commercial profit, treasures from ancient Iraq.
It remains the case that the benefactors of this human tragedy are the western arms manufacturers. Democracy, human rights and Arab nationhood are a mirage on occasions, used by politicians to delude public opinion. Many advocate concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq, but the harsh practicality is totally different. One cannot set aside recent replies by Madeleine Albright—
We think the price is worth it"—
on the sanctions-related death of 500,000 Iraqi children.
Having visited a children's hospital in Baghdad, I know that, whatever the politics involved, to see those infants expiring in one's presence is a dreadful thing. God knows what that is laying up for future generations. It will affect the attitude of a whole section of the Arab world towards the west. That is a disaster, which ought to be looked into by the incoming Government, whoever that will be.

Mr. David Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for initiating the debate. Having heard so many valedictory speeches today, I should make it clear that, although mine is also a valedictory speech, it is valedictory only in terms of the current Parliament: I intend to strive, might and main, to be in the next.
In that context, I take considerable heart from the experiences of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. A few months ago, before the Israeli general election, all the pollsters and pundits were forecasting that he had not a hope of victory. I remember watching a television broadcast on the world network on election day, in which the Israeli Labour party proudly proclaimed, as the results were coming in, that it was back in power and that there would be a Labour Government. Indeed, a victory party was already in progress. In the end, of course, Mr. Netanyahu won the election, and he is Prime Minister today. I think that there is a lesson in that for members of all parties in the House.
Speaking as a Conservative, I am proud to describe the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) as my friend. He is retiring from the House in a few days' time. I have had the privilege of serving with him for part of his long career, and have seen him put up a real fight. Of course, he has fought on behalf of his constituents; that is his primary duty. As a member of the Jewish community in this country, however, and as one whose constituency contains a sizeable section of that community, let me say that the Jewish community has


been extremely proud of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in good times and, more important, in bad. He has risked unpopularity and criticism, and I dare say he has forfeited benefits in his party as a result of his determination to stand up for the causes in which he believes.
Those causes have ranged widely: he has spoken up not just for the state of Israel, but for many other causes involving human rights for the Jewish people and others throughout the world. I pay public tribute to that tremendous record of service. Let me echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack): I hope that we shall not miss the hon. and learned Gentleman's voice, views, work and actions in years to come.
As I said a moment ago, my constituency contains, in Manchester, a sizeable Jewish community. It is a proud community, because the area was the home of modem British Zionism. It is where Weizman came to work at the university, and where he went on to persuade the British Government to grant the first recognition of the possibility of a Jewish home in Israel. I am proud of that connection.
I must say to some of my colleagues on both sides of the House—who, of course, accept the need for Israel to have security—that the issue is real, and will not go away easily. The state of Israel has lived with the threat of extinction for 50 years, and the people know that, at the end of the day, only they themselves will stand with it. They cannot rely on outside forces to come to their rescue if their freedom and security are threatened. That has been their history for 50 years, and they know it well.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, as well as Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Rabin, contributed to the peace process. It should be remembered that he was the first to bring the Egyptians into that process. I remember when he sent Israeli bombers to Iraq to extinguish its nuclear capacity; as a result, many years later, our own forces were free from that threat in the Gulf. There was much criticism of what Begin did from all over the world and all sides of politics, but he did it to preserve Israel's security and, ultimately, ours.
I remind the House that there will be difficult times in the years to come. We all want peace in the middle east— that is the wish of everyone who lives there, not least those in Israel who have seen their sons and daughters killed and wounded for far too long—but that must be balanced by the knowledge that, whatever happens in the future, Israel is not facing extinction. It does not face a threat to its existence, or the end of what was and always has been a great dream. I hope that that will not be forgotten in the Parliaments of the future, of which I hope to be a part.
Theodore Hertzl, the founder of modern Zionism, said of the creation of the state of Israel, "If you will it, it is not a dream." I think that, if there are men and women of good will throughout the middle east who will it, peace too should not be a dream.

Mr. John Gunnell: It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and to follow so many hon. Members with a distinguished record in the House on, among other things, concern about middle east security. I welcome the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).
I taught in a school operated by the United Nations. It was one of the few places where, throughout the 1960s, children of Jewish-American origin, one or two children from Israel and students from a number of Arab countries showed that, if they were not subject to the prejudices that affect many who are much closer to the situation, they could work and learn together in harmony. However, I want to make a couple of observations not because of that experience, but because my limited parliamentary experience has involved two visits to the Lebanon, one of which happened to coincide with the kidnapping of Durani by Israeli forces. That created a period of tension. The second visit was only last April when we saw the start of the attack on Lebanon and witnessed the beginning of shelling in the middle eastern mini-war.

Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the problem of Lebanon and Israel is a two-way problem? I remember standing on the border between Lebanon and Israel and hearing on the news 10 days later that where I had stood had been the subject of an attack from within Lebanon and that people had died. Some of my friends said that the people had got their timing wrong. Does he accept that, if the kibbutzim are being attacked day after day by mortars and missiles, the Israeli Government have to react?

Mr. Gunnell: Wherever there is conflict, there are always two sides to the issue. When we talk about the peace process, we are talking about a process in which, although we hope that parties will come together and recognise the larger good that is secured by peace, there are elements of provocation on both sides. Were that not the case, we would not have such difficult conflicts to resolve. I certainly want to follow through the views of hon. Members who have expressed the wish that the peace process continues in a firm way, and of those who recognise that the Har Homa settlement development is a block in the peace process. I certainly join those hon. Members who have said to Mr. Netanyahu in the debate that they wish that he would feel able to call a halt to that settlement, because we see it doing lasting damage to the peace process. Indeed, we think that it will prove very difficult to get the momentum back into the peace process if the development goes ahead.
I am perhaps more influenced by my role as an observer in a European Union team that witnessed the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly. Through being present at the elections, one got the sense, particularly perhaps because I was in the rural area of Qalqilya, of the joy of the ordinary people who were taking part in the election—the joy that they were free to vote. I met very elderly people who explained to me that it was the first time that they had had the opportunity to vote and who gave me some sense of what that meant to them.
Four generations of one family were all able to vote for the first time. It was clearly an occasion that gave them not a sense of bitterness about the experiences of their life, but the same sense of hope and forward-looking attitude as we have seen in other areas where elections have been held, almost unexpectedly in terms of the slow progress in the development of moves towards peace.
It is important that we get the peace process back on track. Those people took the election seriously, but, above all, they wanted recognition of a Palestinian state. They looked forward to that, because they seemed to be in


a period of promise. The area in which I was observing the election was very rural, so there were no hotels in which, it was thought, members of an EU observation team could stay. Therefore, we stayed in a settlement. I think that we were the only observation team to do so.
It was interesting to talk to people at the settlement and to see the different attitudes. One of our two election teams, a team of Swedes, had gone out perhaps 200 or 300 yards on election morning before the flat tyre on their vehicle became evident. The British consulate made it clear that it believed that that flat tyre was no coincidence. Indeed, an object had obviously been knocked into the tyre because some people did not wish the process to go ahead at that stage. That demonstrated that there were those who violently opposed the agreement.
The turn of events has shown that those people have had considerable influence since. We understand the pressures on Mr. Netanyahu. We think that it is important to focus on the problem of Jerusalem. We know that this Government have recognised the importance of east Jerusalem, but the ringing round of Jerusalem by settlements, which is more or less completed by the Har Homa development, has been accompanied by pressures on Arabs living in east Jerusalem to leave it. Although we could not, as yet, describe that process as anything like ethnic cleansing, it has some features of that: the mood is that people who are Arabs are not welcome in east Jerusalem. That meant that the experience of election day for Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem was very different from the experience that I witnessed in rural areas.
I am anxious to join other hon. Members in hoping that the peace process is not stalled and that, whatever the result of our election, the United Kingdom Government will continue to take a stand on issues involving Jerusalem and to support United Nations resolutions. I recognise that we would have supported the recent UN resolution that was vetoed by the United States. I hope that, in continuing discussions within the Euro-Med agreement, we can ensure that pressures for the recognition of human rights are sustained. To that end, I join other hon. Members in wishing that middle east security can be underpinned by a recognition of the human rights of all the people who live there.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on securing this debate. It is an extremely important debate in terms of its timing, but it is also an occasion that, over the next few weeks, many of us who have been able to participate will well remember, because it has shown that the House of Commons is rational and that we can conduct debate in a sensible way. Perhaps there will not be much of that atmosphere in the country in the next few weeks. Therefore, we should enjoy it and perhaps luxuriate in it this morning.
It has also been a great pleasure to be here for the valedictory speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). My path crossed that of my hon. and learned Friend before I became a Member. I was the unsuccessful Labour candidate for Bosworth in 1979. My great achievement was to turn what was then a marginal Conservative seat into a safe Conservative seat.

My successor as Labour candidate was my hon. and learned Friend's son and he did worse than I did, so our paths crossed at that point. I am sorry that his son has not followed in his footsteps—

Sir Patrick Cormack: The son of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has joined us now.

Mr. Fatchett: I understand what has happened in the family, but, if my hon. and learned Friend's son had come into the House, he would have had to follow the extremely fine example that had been set by his father. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West has been a great servant of the people of Leicester; I know that from my own involvement with Leicestershire over the years. He has also been a great servant to his own community, and on the issues that we are discussing.
It was a great pleasure to hear the final speech by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) to the House. I am sure that, when the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that we hoped that that would not be the right hon. Gentleman's final speech in the Houses of Parliament, his wishes were echoed on both sides of the House.
We do not have any nominating powers, so I cannot make any suggestion or offer to the right hon. Gentleman in that direction, but I am sure that I have the support of every hon. Member when I say that the right hon. Gentleman's period as a Member of the House of Commons will be well respected and fondly remembered. I am sure, too, that his contribution as leader of his party will go down in history as one that saw the party rebuilt in a modern way that gave it a very significant voice in British politics.
I agree whole-heartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the arms trade. It is one of the big moral, economic and political challenges that faces us as we move into the next millennium. It is a travesty when extremely poor countries spend disproportionate amounts of their budgets on arms. There is no need or moral justification for that. We all realise that difficult decisions will be involved in reversing the process, but the task for all of us is to see what contribution we can make towards that end.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rightly broadened the scope of the debate beyond the middle east peace process. I hope that they will accept my apologies for concentrating, in the few minutes left to me, on the peace process alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised, as always, some important moral and political issues that will not go away, which will have to be confronted in the next Parliament.
The mood of the House in the debate has been clear: we all want the peace process to continue. That is not surprising, because that process brings to those in the region opportunities for justice, security and prosperity, and to the rest of the world security in a sensitive region and the opportunity for expanded trade and economic development. The price of failure is great; the prize for success is immense. Therefore the peace process is important to each and every one of us.
All the contributions to the debate have made, with justification, the same point—that the peace process is at a crossroads. That is right, although we must remind


ourselves that significant progress has been made over the past few years. The contributions of many people, as statesmen, have already been mentioned. The decision on the Hebron agreement was crucial for the Likud Government, because it endorsed the peace process and they are now part of that process. That is not to say—and nobody is saying—that the process will continue to move easily towards a final settlement. That is not how things will be, and we know about all the difficulties.
May I draw to the attention of the House, if I need to do so, the dreadful events of last Thursday, when Israeli schoolgirls were killed. We in the House find it easy to understand the grief, because of the events in Dunblane almost exactly a year ago.
Out of those tragic events of last Thursday, some important developments arose. The fact that King Hussein of Jordan felt able to visit Israel and join the grieving family is in itself a tremendously significant statement and act. We all congratulate him on the role that he has played in trying to maintain the peace process.
Naturally, hon. Members have mentioned the Har Homa settlement, and on that subject there is no difference between the two sides of the House. In our view the settlement is contrary to the United Nations resolutions and is an impediment to peace. We ask Prime Minister Netanyahu to think again.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked about the need for statesmanship, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale drew attention to the difference between politics and statesmanship. An act of statesmanship is desperately required from all the parties to the middle east peace process—an act inspired not by immediate political gain, but by the need to ensure that the long-term interests of the people of the region and of the countries directly affected are recognised and put first.
The message arising from the debate is clear. We wish to see that act of statesmanship by the key players. We want them to follow the example that King Hussein has so clearly set.
The way in which this country can make a contribution to the middle east peace process has already been described. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale talked about the role of the European Union, and it is important that that body speaks with a consistent co-ordinated voice on questions affecting the peace process. The role already played by envoy Moratinos has been especially important. The hon. Member for Southport need not worry about any embryonic European foreign policy here; what he needs to think about, in a common-sense way, is how we can co-ordinate things and make a contribution to the long-term objective that we all share.
That does not mean going around the region pitting one country against another; it means using the expertise, knowledge and experience that we have, and the friendships that Britain, almost uniquely, has on both the Israeli and the Arab side. Let us build on those to play a constructive role, not in competition with the United States but in support—with the need, occasionally, to be a candid friend to the United States and to say that things are not being done in the right way, and that we have some advice and experience to offer.
That is an important role for this country and for the European Union. There is something on which we in this country can pride ourselves. I shall even give the Government some credit for it, although that may be the last time that I say that over the next few weeks. We can give the Government credit for the contribution that this country has made towards EU aid for the Palestinians.
It is clear enough that there must be a real financial benefit for the Palestinians from the Oslo process. Since the Oslo agreement, their standard of living has fallen by 20 per cent. There must be a relationship in which people can see not only peace and justice but economic prosperity too.
I shall finish on the thought that although we shall be divided over the next few weeks, one thing will unite the House when it returns after the election, and will unite whatever party is in government. That is our wish to make a continuing commitment to peace in the middle east—a peace to bring security to the people of Israel and justice for the long term for all the people within the region. If we can make a contribution to that, we shall have made a significant contribution to a better world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I had intended to make a longer speech at this point, because the title of the debate covers such a wide area, and so many important matters have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. However, unfortunately I have been left with even less time than I would usually have in a normal half-hour Adjournment debate.
I wanted to heap fulsome praise on the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who is a good friend, and has worked closely with me on foreign affairs for nearly two years. I also wanted to pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is also a good friend. However, I know that they will both allow me to express on another occasion my feelings about their contributions to the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on his choice of debate. Because the contributions to the debate have been long, my comments must be short. I hope that the House will accept that my brevity is a sign not of rudeness, but of the fact that I must now get down to business.
I know that many hon. Members share my concern about the situation that has developed in Israel and the occupied territories. Sadly, events since January have largely dissipated the good will generated by the Hebron agreement. The start of the construction of the settlement of Har Homa in one of the few gaps in the ring of Israeli settlements around the Arab area of East Jerusalem can do nothing but harm to the peace process, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday. The international community agrees that this settlement, like all settlements, is illegal. It also goes against the spirit of the Oslo agreement.
It is very disappointing that the Israeli Government have decided to go ahead, against all the advice of the international community. The fact that they have done so damages the peace process and, I believe, damages Israel too—not only in her relations with other states, but in the prospects for the peace and security desired by the vast


majority of Israelis. Regrettably, the tension caused by this issue has caused mistrust in other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.
We welcomed the fact that the first stage of Israeli redeployment on the west bank was announced on time, but we are aware that its extent caused disappointment among the Palestinians. We must remember that the Palestinian track remains central to the peace process, and indeed to the whole question of security in the middle east. Since the start of the process, when there were positive moves on that track, there has been greater optimism and stability across the region. When there have been difficulties between Israel and the Palestinians, dangerous tensions have arisen.
Events since the start of the year have demonstrated that contrast starkly. The signature of the Hebron agreement showed that the Government of Mr. Netanyahu regarded themselves as bound by the Oslo process, which had made such gains under the previous Israeli administration. Indeed, the strong majority in the Knesset for the Hebron agreement was an encouraging signal for further progress on the Palestinian track. The first subsequent stage of Israeli redeployment on the west bank was set for early March, and the start of final status talks for mid-March. As I have said, Hebron lifted our hearts somewhat.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been meeting this week to see if they can find a way to return to the process that had resumed after Hebron. We hope they will succeed. One casualty of the current inflamed situation has been the scheduled start of the final status talks. These talks are to determine the shape of an overall settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and we have urged both sides not to allow the timetable to slip further. If final status talks are to succeed, an atmosphere of confidence will need to be restored—above all, there must be an end to unilateral moves that create mistrust and the risk of violent reaction.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear repeatedly our views on settlements and related issues. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), as I have done so often on this matter, that there is solidarity in the House. There is a need for both sides to do all that they can to reduce the tension that has arisen. We took a firm line in the UN Security Council debate, and at the General Assembly. We have played a leading role in the efforts of the EU— particularly through its special envoy Miguel Moratinos, to whom we give our full support and co-operation. He is doing an excellent job, and we hope that he can restore the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating relationship.
We have heard this morning about the EU-Israel association agreement, which was debated at length in Committee a month ago today. The agreement is part of the Union's efforts to support the stable and prosperous development of the region. A parallel agreement with the Palestinians was signed by the General Affairs Council last month. The final decision to adopt the EU-Israel agreement will need to be taken by Ministers in the General Affairs Council after all member states have ratified it. While the peace process continues to make progress, there is no good argument for holding this up. But if progress is halted, EU-Israel relations generally could not fail to be affected. I therefore cannot say whether this will be a succesful negotiation.
As for the Syrian-Lebanese tracks, we must understand there can be no comprehensive peace in the region without peace between Israel and Syria, and we very much hope that negotiations broken off last year can be restarted on the basis of land for peace. Progress on that track could lead to movement on the Lebanese track, and an end to the tragic on-going fighting in southern Lebanon which has claimed so many lives on both sides, including in the Lebanese civilian population. The people of Israel want to see no more of their young men and women dying in south Lebanon. It is up to Israel to make progress.
On aid to the Palestinians, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central for his comment. The UK will disburse some £28 million in aid to the Palestinians this financial year and we are giving the EU a great deal of support, which is included in that figure.
I shall put the question of middle east security in the context of our prime interests in the Gulf. In the past 15 years, the stability of the region, and thus the economic well-being of the Gulf states, has twice been threatened by aggression. With two thirds of the world's proven reserves of oil in the Gulf—in a world increasingly dependent on oil—the western nations, including Britain, have a paramount interest in secure access to the Gulf. It is now over six years since the end of the Gulf war, and our Gulf friends know that, as we demonstrated in 1994, they can count on our help. Our long-standing association with the Gulf and a wide range of shared interests mean that the UK in particular has a strong interest in securing and underpinning peace and stability in the Gulf, and containing any threats.
A key strand of our policy in that region is our enthusiastic support for the Gulf Co-operation Council— to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred—which we have supported since its inception in 1981. We are committed to helping the GCC states establish co-ordinated defence forces, which are essential for their assured future. Those arrangements need to be matched by greater political co-ordination and co-operation. I am happy to give credit where credit is due, and I heartily welcome the recent agreement between Bahrain and Qatar—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport also referred, in his excellent speech—to improve their bilateral relations and to appoint ambassadors. We hope that that process of consultation and consolidation will continue. We shall also continue to take the lead in promoting constructive dialogue between the EU and the GCC.
We are also concerned by the continuing dispute between the UAE and Iran over Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands. We have urged both parties to seek a peaceful resolution and are happy to support the UAE proposal to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. I urge the Iranians to enter into serious negotiations to resolve that dispute.
Britain makes an extensive military contribution to Gulf security. We contribute to operations Northern and Southern Watch over Iraq. We have maintained a naval presence in the Gulf since 1980, through the Armilla patrol. We also work closely with the Gulf states to see how we can best help support them in their defence needs. These are a few examples of Gulf security, but we stand ready to offer any additional help that might be needed with training or in supplying defence equipment.
Gulf trade has increased dramatically. Combined exports to the six GCC countries in 1996 totalled almost £5.25 billion—an increase of 26.8 per cent. over 1995. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were, respectively, our 13th and 24th largest export markets. Saudi Arabia is our foremost non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development market, and our exports there rose by 51 per cent. last year. I was pleased to attend the inaugural meeting of the UK-Dubai joint trade committee on board Britannia. The enormous strides made by the UAE on the economic front in recent years provide good opportunities for the UK and Europe. Our fundamental interests in the Gulf are almost identical with those of the GCC countries, and our perception of the threat is also identical.
As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to middle east security. As recently as October 1994, he threatened to invade Kuwait once again, and only the swift and robust response of the international community stopped him. He is a danger to his own people, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) supports him. Only last year, Saddam Hussein used his considerable military machine to attack civilians in Irbil—a clear flouting of Security Council resolution 688. I say yet again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions. If there are starving children in Iraq, it is the fault of Saddam Hussein, who builds glorified palaces to his name and his honour when people are starving. Blame him, do not blame this House, Sir.
Following the Gulf war, we established a special commission to oversee the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We provide strong support to that commission. I must again tell the hon. Gentleman that members of the United Nations special commission in Iraq carry out vital work. They are trying to spot weapons of mass destruction, which it is said could kill the world's population six times over. All the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to make cheap criticism of their work and their accommodation. I should have thought that they should be congratulated on their achievements instead of subjected to unjustified criticism.
We now have United Nations Security Council resolution 986. There is a greater amount of money—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must move on to the next subject.

East Ayrshire Community Hospital

Mr. George Foulkes: First, I must say how pleased I am to see the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) here to answer the debate. I must take this opportunity to thank him for his unfailing personal courtesy to me and, I believe, to other Scottish Members, during his term of office. We have been grateful for that.
I regret to say, however, that the story of the proposed East Ayrshire hospital is a saga of Government delay and ineptitude, and of the Conservatives putting political dogma ahead of health care. As far back as 1993, which is four years ago, the South Ayrshire Hospitals national health service trust had planned to replace the Ballochmyle hospital at Mauchlin with a new purpose-built community hospital for East Ayrshire on the same site at Ballochmyle. That meant that the land was in NHS ownership, ready for the building to go ahead.
The Government had earmarked £13 million in the capital budget. If construction of the hospital had started as planned and been funded as originally intended, it would be open now, and the urgent needs of the people of East Ayrshire would be being provided for at this minute. Instead, we have had a catalogue of dithering, delay, political interference and, I am afraid to say, chicanery.
First, the then Health Minister, Lord Fraser, threw a spanner in the works when he announced that, rather than proceed as planned, two NHS trusts would have to compete for the right to build and run the hospital. That is a prime example of the way in which unnecessary competition and rivalry have replaced planned provision in the NHS, setting trust against trust.
Instead of providing immediately for the health needs of the area, there was a long and often acrimonious debate about which trust should run the hospital, and whether it should be at Ballochmyle, as originally planned by the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust, or on a new site at Cumnock, where the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare trust preferred it to be.
That long-drawn-out consultation eventually finished in June 1995, but, regrettably, the dithering of the Ayrshire and Arran health board added further to the delay, when it failed to decide at its board meeting in July as it had planned to do. The board left the decision until the end of September and opted for the community trust—not the trust that had originally intended to build the hospital— and for building the hospital on the Cumnock site. Incidentally, that site is not in NHS ownership, so the decision added planning and acquisition problems.
I regret to say that that was not the end of the catalogue of delay and interference. Ministers intervened again to insist that the option of a private finance initiative should be considered alongside that of public funding, which had been the original intention and for which the money had been earmarked. The public funding option had not been questioned, either by the board or the trust, until the Government interfered. That political interference was unnecessary, as public funding had been earmarked for the hospital, and it has been the cause of even more unnecessary and unwelcome delay.
Nearly 18 months after the health board's decision, not a brick has been laid. There is not even an agreed contract, unless the Minister tells me otherwise today—but I doubt


it, for reasons that I will come to. On 17 November 1995, however, the chairman of the health board, Jim Donaldson, wrote to me giving the timetable, promising that the first patients would be treated in the day hospital by November 1996. That date has passed, and not a brick has been laid or a contract signed. He also promised that the out-patients and general practitioner unit would be operating in October 1997, and the continuing care facilities by April 1998. There is no hope of any of that now.
In his letter, Mr. Donaldson said:
The Board and the Community Trust have made a clear public commitment to delivering the new Community Hospital within the time scale outlined above … It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that the timetable is achieved.
It is evident that it has failed in that responsibility; and who are the losers? None other than the people of East Ayrshire, who are waiting for much-needed, long-overdue healthcare facilities.
Although the Ayrshire and Arran health board has manifestly failed, I argue that the Government are the principle cause of that failure. The board is responsible to the Minister—it is appointed by him and under his direction. It reports to the management executive, to Mr. Geoff Scaife and, through him, to the Minister regularly. It is the dithering, the interference and, frankly, the dubious practices of Scottish Office Ministers that have caused the delay.
First, the Government's insistence on the PFI option meant a delay while the preferred bidder was chosen. We had to go through all the procedure of considering potential bidders and choosing one. Ultimately, the community trust chose G. A. Construction Ltd.—formerly Gilbert Ash Ltd., I think.
The first delay was in coming to a decision about the preferred bidder, but eventually, on 2 September last year, the trust submitted the PFI bid, together with the public funding option as an alternative. That option is still there. That is the benchmark for considering whether the hospital should be constructed through the PFI.
I presume that the benchmark must be at or near—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—the £8 million that was the original figure with which the community trust won the competition with the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust bid was about £11.5 million.
What happened? I understand that this is happening not merely in East Ayrshire but in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It would appear that the PFI bid was not merely much more expensive than the £8 million benchmark—in other words, PFIs are much more expensive than funding by the traditional public method— but it is rumoured that it was even higher than the South Ayrshire Hospitals trust figure. It might even have been as high as £12 million.
What happened then? This is the interesting thing, as Ministers received the details of the PFI bid and the benchmark figure, but then told the community trust that they would give the preferred bidder time "to revise the bid". The Minister used that phrase in a parliamentary answer to me.
That was very fishy: why was extra time given to revise the bid? What fiddling of the figures was needed behind the scenes? Were the specifications reduced in an attempt

to get the PFI bid down to the benchmark figure or below? The Minister has so far refused all the opportunities that I have given him to answer those questions. I hope that he will take the opportunity to answer today, to the House and to me, but above all to the people of East Ayrshire.
I regret to say that there is more to the story: 1 November passed and there was still no announcement, and on 4 November I tabled another parliamentary question, to be told by the Minister that he would announce the decision "shortly"; but still there is no decision. I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) agrees that that is stretching the English language a little too far. It is stretching the patience of the long-suffering people of East Ayrshire even further, particularly as the closure of wards in Ballochmyle continues relentlessly. Health care in East Ayrshire is deteriorating rather than improving as was intended.
The suspicion that something fishy was going on behind the scenes was increased with the revelation that a second revised PFI bid had to be submitted two weeks ago today. I understand that it is still on the Minister's desk, being considered. Why was that further revision necessary? I hope that the Minister will answer that question today. Have there been further changes in the specification? Are corners being cut? Will we get a second-rate hospital because the Minister and the management executive are insisting that the trust should try to find reductions in the PFI bid?
Over the past few months, I have asked question after question in the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and still delays continue as Ministers try to get the answer they want rather than the best answer for the national health service and for the people of East Ayrshire.
I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the facilities to be provided in the East Ayrshire hospital have not been cut back, that they are still as outlined in his written answer to me of 6 February, and that there is still money in the capital pool to fund the hospital publicly. I believe that that is the better option.
Will the Minister say whether the report in yesterday'sFinancial Timesis correct, which said that banks will not support PFI schemes for hospitals, because any trust signing a deal with a private consortium would be acting ultra vires under current legislation? Will he stop trying to fiddle the figures to favour the PFI option? Why does not he give the go-ahead for the long overdue and much-needed hospital, funded with public money?
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and I can assure the Minister in this changeover period that my hon. Friend would support the course of action that I advocate. Parliament is to be prorogued on Friday, and the Minister has the opportunity to finish his ministerial career with one act of sense and courage; I urge him to do so.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on securing a debate on this important subject. I should like to say straight away that there have certainly been no cuts in specification for the new hospital.
I am extremely encouraged by the recent good progress towards securing the new facility, and I am delighted that more locally based, responsive health services will in the future be available for the people of East Ayrshire. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's description of his concerns and those of his constituents, and I hope that he will be reassured that we are well on the way to delivering this important new facility.
I shall turn to the details of the development in its local context in a moment, but it is important to place the new East Ayrshire community hospital in a national context. The scheme that has been developed for East Ayrshire is an excellent practical example of the projects that we are encouraging and that will be supported by the initiatives in the White Paper "Ready for the Future".
The White Paper's main themes are an emphasis on prevention; better information for the public and access to services; greater responsiveness to patients' needs; effective continuity of care; and excellence in clinical and management practice. The positive features of the new East Ayrshire community hospital will translate each of those into action.
Most obviously, the convenient siting of the hospital at Cumnock will provide the easiest access for the greatest numbers of the people whom it will serve. Transportation links to the site were a key consideration for the trust. For both in-patient and out-patient treatment, as well as for longer-term continuing care, the hospital meets head on the challenge to ensure that patients have access to care locally wherever possible, and can avoid travelling to facilities many miles further from home.
The improved services and facilities will meet patients' needs better, tackle the particular health problems prevalent in the area, provide effective continuity of care and foster clinical excellence. The location of the new facility in Cumnock will offer new opportunities to develop new and effective strategies to improve the health service's action in preventing disease.
The development provides a first-class example of a primary care-led NHS. There will be accessible and locally provided services, and patient care will be properly planned and well co-ordinated between the primary and secondary care sectors. A broader range of services will be available locally, with access to a network of specialist support services.
Ayrshire and Arran health board has had very clear criteria about the objectives of the East Ayrshire community hospital project since its inception. It wanted high-quality, innovative, cost-effective services delivered locally for the people of East Ayrshire. I am delighted that we are getting closer to delivering exactly that

Mr. Foulkes: When?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall say in the course of my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be the first to recognise the particular importance of the project. East Ayrshire contains areas of considerable socio-economic deprivation and unemployment, and relatively poor health. All the parties involved with the project have recognised from the outset that the development of health

services in the area must take proper account of that. Health care must target resources on the areas of local need. The new community hospital will therefore be sited at Cumnock in order to provide the easiest possible access to the largest possible proportion of the area's population.
The proposals are built on the concept of locally provided, patient-centred care, in terms of both service delivery and building design. It will be a primary care-focused service, offering integrated care for the locality. The hospital will include a 24-bed general practice unit—doubling the current complement in the area—24 day hospital places, out-patient services, and 50 continuing care and respite care places.
People will be able to receive the care that they need as close to their homes as possible. That is a model for future NHS services: local people deciding how best to meet local needs, and working in partnership—both public and private—to produce innovative and imaginative schemes. I therefore welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played a part in bringing this project so close to fruition.

Mr. Foulkes: When will that be?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am just coming to that.
As I have said, good progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the autumn of 1995, the health board selected Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust to take forward its proposals for the new community hospital. Having advertised for bidders, narrowed down a shortlist, and examined the resulting tenders, the trust selected a private partner with whom to explore funding the project under PFI in June 1996.
The hon. Gentleman has made clear his concern that the process of exploring PFI has taken longer than it should. He will be aware that several months of delay were caused by the refusal of the then Cumnock and Doon Valley district council to grant planning permission for the new facility. Although that problem was eventually resolved, the resulting delay of more than four months was frustrating for those keen to make progress. It was in no measure the fault of the trust, the health board, or the PFI process.
Since then, much progress has been made. A full business case was received in the autumn of 1996, and subsequent negotiations between the trust and the bidder have been extremely fruitful in making the PFI option even more attractive. As with many PFI projects, a great deal of negotiation has been necessary to ensure that the project is affordable and that the taxpayer gets the new hospital at the best possible price.
I am glad to say that those issues are now largely concluded in the case of East Ayrshire, and I would expect negotiations to be concluded very shortly. However, I am bound by election rules since the declaration of the Prime Minister. I would not expect the trust to sign the contract until after the general election, in the light of advice from the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that no further decisions should be made or actions taken that are of a continuously binding or long-term character. However, I expect negotiations to be concluded this month.
The new East Ayrshire community hospital is not the only development to benefit from the private finance initiative. Some 18 health projects, with a capital value of


nearly £56 million, have already been completed. They include: Ferryfield house, a 60-bed nursing home in Edinburgh that is now up and running; hospital information support systems at the Law hospital, Perth and Kinross Healthcare and Yorkhill NHS trusts; and a new £3.8 million community hospital in Stonehaven.
Thirteen more projects, with a total value of nearly £600 million, are beyond the point of being advertised as PFI schemes; a further nine projects, with a value of £250 million, are preparing to advertise in the near future. Projects are coming to fruition rapidly.
In the past few weeks, Lanarkshire health board has given formal approval for the building of two new district general hospitals under the PFI to replace Law and Hairmyres hospitals. Lothian health board has approved a scheme for the new royal infirmary. A promising design has been proposed for the redevelopment of the Western general hospital in Edinburgh. All the trusts concerned will be working with the consortia on the final stages of contract negotiations before submitting final proposals to the Scottish Office.
This huge investment programme could not be funded from the public capital programme. Demand far outstrips the availability of public capital. However, the PFI brings many other tangible benefits. The evidence so far is that it gives very good value for money, and only projects that offer value for money are allowed to proceed. It provides an ideal opportunity for the private sector to offer innovative solutions, while enabling projects to go ahead well in advance of the time scale that would apply if public capital alone were used.
PFI contracts also give the private sector an incentive to deliver on time and maintain services to a high standard. Quality of service is a recurring theme. The PFI is about delivering services rather than assets, and payments for the services are based on results. Capital and management skills are provided by the private sector, while the service remains under public control. Finally, risks previously borne by the public sector are transferred to the private sector through PFI deals. In particular, the risks of technical obsolescence, upgrading and residual value of equipment are borne by the supplier.
Those points are well documented, and I suspect that most Opposition Members would accept them, despite their initial reluctance wholly to embrace the PFI. It is worth remembering that these are all benefits that will improve health care services provided to people, including now those in East Ayrshire. I know that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will welcome that.

Mr. Foulkes: I am conscious of what the Minister said about Treasury rules and the Cabinet Office instruction about not making decisions until after the general election, which is right and understandable. However, that would suggest that no decision can be taken until well into May, which means further delay for East Ayrshire hospital. If the Government decided to go ahead with the traditional public funding method using public capital, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) concurred, would it not be possible to make a decision now?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are virtually at the stage at which a PFI project can go ahead. If the hon. Gentleman favoured that—I see that he does not, so I cannot make him an offer, given the election rules.
The PFI will greatly benefit the national health service, because it will ensure that public sector funds go much further. The PFI is new territory for the NHS and the private sector, and both have much to learn about each other. The deals are long-term partnerships of 20 to 25 years, involving millions of pounds of capital and significant revenue streams into the future. Partnerships— I deliberately use the word "partnership" because this is a partnership between the public and private sectors— involve provision of health care environments, and as such are not the sort of schemes that should be hurried into agreements. The NHS is too important for that. We have to get the details right.
The hon. Gentleman asked about trust vires. We have clear advice that NHS trusts have the power to sign PFI contracts. Some banks have expressed concern about that. The issue has been discussed with them, but the calling of the general election has prevented any conclusion from being reached.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister in his reply to my earlier intervention seemed to be about to make an offer. Although I was wincing a little, I was not shaking my head. It may be that what he was about to say would have been acceptable. That could be explored with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is present. If there were a way forward to ensure that there was no further delay, I should be grateful if it could be explored.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are close to the possible signing of a contract, but under general election rules we are not in a position to do that. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to the shadow Secretary of State and received his support, and believed it to be in the public interest that the project should go ahead, I would certainly raise it with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, both Government and Opposition are bound by the Cabinet rules. I shall endeavour to ensure that he has all the available information. It will be a few days before we are in a position to do that. If he wants to come back to me, he is welcome to do so.
Ayrshire and Arran health board has consistently received higher than average resources per head in recognition of its population profile, and an increasing share of the national total. For 1997–98, it will receive an extra 5.4 per cent. over the 1996–97 figure. We believe strongly that the development will mark yet further progress in health care facilities for Ayrshire and Arran. Just as the new hospital will be geared to meet the health needs of East Ayrshire, so has the Scottish Office made sure that the same principle holds true for the people of the whole of Ayrshire and Arran by ensuring that they receive funding much higher than inflation, and above the national average.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. On 18 December 1996, he asked me in the House why the proposals have been delayed by the PFI, and why public funding was not being made available immediately. I told him that the trusts were confident that, with further negotiations, the hospital could be provided under the PFI. That remains the case, with the PFI looking increasingly likely to provide the fastest solution.
Contrary to speculation, the scheme has a far better chance of getting up and running quickly under the PFI than it would if it joined the queue for the limited public


capital resources available. If negotiations are concluded soon, I expect building to be completed by the end of 1998, which is probably faster than could be achieved by any other route. The sooner we can deliver the hospital, the better.
The East Ayrshire hospital project has been able to learn the lessons of other PFI schemes, such as the most effective period over which to let a contract, the need for flexible output specifications, and the need to ensure the right balance between debt funding from banks and equity input from investors. For many reasons, the PFI looks like the best mechanism to deliver the desired improved quality of services to those who need them.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. If he wishes to come back to me, he is welcome to do so: I would look into the matter speedily and effectively. He has served a valuable purpose by raising the subject.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the debate, and for his offer. I shall talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith, who also has an interest in the matter, has been present for the debate today. I am grateful for the Minister's offer of further discussions. I do not want dogma to decide the matter—I want the health needs of the people of east Ayrshire to decide it. As the Minister rightly said, they have particular health needs, because they are disadvantaged. I am grateful to the Minister for that help.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the half minute that remains, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is here, I repeat that I have made it clear that PFI projects would not be pursued unless clinicians and local management wanted them. In relation to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked some time ago—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move to the next debate.

Education (Vale of Glamorgan)

1 pm

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am grateful for the opportunity to inform the House about the difficulties that are being caused to all schools in Vale of Glamorgan by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan council.
At the end of last month, schools were told that the council was about to impose budget cuts of £3.13 million on education. The effect on schools would be catastrophic. Some schools would face cuts of as much as 15 per cent. It was not surprising that about 200 worried parents, teachers, governors and pupils appeared at my advice surgery in Llantwit Major on Friday 28 February expressing their demand that the savage proposed cuts be reversed by the council and seeking my help to achieve that end. Since then, I have visited various schools and have had discussions with head teachers, staff, parents and governors.
I was appalled to find that there seemed to have been little or no consultation with any of those people about the necessity for such a high level of cuts or about the way in which savings could be effected in administration or elsewhere in the council's budget. On 4 March 1997, I faxed a letter to the chief executive of Vale of Glamorgan council, the director of education and the leader of the council, Councillor Shaun Stringer. I suggested that, before the budget was fixed, a series of consultative meetings should be held throughout the vale so that everyone could have a say on how best to protect their children's future.
I also requested sight of the council's budget to enable me to work constructively with the council to identify potential savings which could be used to relieve the heavy burden of cuts on schools. Unfortunately, the reply from Councillor Stringer was less than helpful. He stated:
I have no intention of disclosing or, indeed, discussing the Council's budget with you at any time, as I consider you to be part of the problem and in no way part of the solution.
I am appalled at the unwillingness of the leader of the council to co-operate with the local Member of Parliament in the best interests of all the people, of whatever party, whom I and the vale councillors represent. Councillor Stringer's negative attitude contrasts unfavourably with that of council leaders in the former Vale of Glamorgan borough council, including Councillor Stringer, who showed a more positive attitude in those days to working with their Member of Parliament for the benefit of the community, even if that Member of Parliament was of a different political persuasion.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware of a similar scandal in my constituency? Conwy county borough council has told deliberate lies to the schools in my constituency in order to cover up the reason for cutting school budgets. It has calculated the expenditure required for schools and deducted from it the income that schools expect to receive from nursery vouchers. Where in any accounting practice does one deduct income from expenditure and use the net figure to calculate the budgets, which will inevitably show a cut that they should not show?

Mr. Sweeney: I was not aware of that circumstance, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the


attention of the House. I am sure that everyone will be interested to learn about that further example of duplicity and incompetence on the part of a Labour-controlled authority.
Perhaps I should not have been too surprised at Councillor Stringer's petulance, as he appears to have been equally unhelpful to the head teachers in the vale, who were given a similar brush-off. I understand from them that, at meetings on Monday 3 and Tuesday 4 March, they were told that the proposed cuts were all the fault of the Government and that not an extra penny could be found for school budgets. If that is the way in which the leader of the council treats top professionals when they are seriously worried about education standards for children in their care, it should come as no surprise to me that he puts party politics before the interests of children.
Within 24 hours, Councillor Stringer was singing a different tune. I presume that he was overwhelmed by the strength of public opposition to his proposals. First, it was announced that the council would put back into the schools budget approximately £2 million. It was planned to raise half that figure by confiscating the reserves of schools and redistributing them. The effect would have been catastrophic for thrifty schools which had created reserves. Some of them were planning to spend their reserves in order to keep on teachers or other staff who would otherwise have been made redundant as a result of the cuts. The effect of the revised proposals would have been to punish thrifty schools—a typically "old Labour" idea. Unfortunately for Councillor Stringer, but fortunately for the schools, it was pointed out to him that the proposals were illegal. The proposed budget cut, which had been reduced by about £2 million, was immediately increased again by about £1 million.
It has been impossible for me to establish precisely by how much school budgets are now to suffer. There is an atmosphere of confusion. Councillor Stringer appears to be making policy on the hoof. My telephone inquiries this morning have revealed that the best estimate of the final level of cuts is about £1.7 million. I have no doubt that head teachers throughout Vale of Glamorgan have spent many anxious evenings poring over their school budgets, deciding who will have to be sacked in order to balance the books.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I have listened with some interest to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about this complex situation. Will he answer one or two questions in the course of his remarks? Is it true that in this year's financial settlement Vale of Glamorgan council will receive less money than it did last year? Is it true that the council, the heads and all the teaching unions—the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, UCAC—the Welsh teachers' association—the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the Secondary Heads Association— have agreed a concordat under which no teacher will be made compulsorily redundant and no class size will be increased? That is the result of consultation between the vale and all its teachers. The head teacher who represents all the head teachers has written to the Western Mail

saying that reports of things such as the hon. Gentleman is now saying are a load of rubbish and that they are disconcerting the teachers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be less than a minute.

Mr. Sweeney: I will not say that I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Vale of Glamorgan council has known, or at least the Labour leadership has known, for several months that the council was running over budget in education. It should have taken some pre-emptive action as long ago as last November to deal with the overspend, instead of confronting schools at the last minute before the budget is due to be fixed, with the appalling prospect of ghastly cuts. If a deal has been stitched together which will ensure that no teacher losses will occur, that is wonderful news for the people of the vale, but until it is confirmed by the council, I remain extremely sceptical about it.
Indeed, if the cuts are not to be made, why is it that, as recently as 5 March, we were faced with a proposal to sack about 45 teachers? I can only speculate that what has happened is that the Labour leadership has experienced such a barrage of criticism and abuse from the public, who are rightly extremely upset about this politically motivated punishment of their innocent children, that the message has got across that such behaviour is unacceptable. Why is the council's Labour leadership so blind to the realities of life and the importance of children and education that it has only just woken up to the strength of public concern?
My school visits have revealed the widespread anxiety about the increased class sizes that will result if teachers are sacked. One head of department at a secondary school pointed out that it is often not possible to sack the weakest member of staff, because there may be a shortage of teachers in his or her specialist subject area; thus, excellent teachers may be lost. Some school buildings are very poor, with cramped portakabin classrooms which will be physically overcrowded if four or five extra children have to be crammed into a class.
I am furious that Councillor Stringer is attempting to shift the blame for the incompetence of his own council in arranging its budget on to the Welsh Office. I have read Councillor Stringer's "Budget Update 1997—Council Tax News", in which he falsely claims that the council is faced with "massive budget cuts". That brings me to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). My inquiries at the Welsh Office have revealed that the standard spending assessment for Vale of Glamorgan council has been increased by 1.8 per cent. to £95,846,000. Under provisional capping principles, the council can increase its 1996–97 budget by 4 per cent. to £97,404,000.I understand that Vale of Glamorgan council does intend to spend up to its capping limit. It is therefore a fraud on the electorate for Councillor Stringer to claim that the council is faced with massive budget cuts and to imply that the Welsh Office is to blame.
Even allowing for inflation, there is only a tiny reduction in Welsh Office funding, which is entirely consistent with the Government's policies of expecting the public sector to achieve efficiency savings. Everyone in the private sector has to do that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend continues to speak from a


sedentary position, but a tiny reduction in the budget is hardly the massive reduction claimed by Councillor Stringer. It is the height of irresponsibility and incompetence for Vale of Glamorgan council, which is totally dominated by Labour councillors, to produce a budget that will hurt all the children in Vale of Glamorgan by damaging their education prospects while, at the same time, trying to blame the Government.
If the hon. Member for Bridgend is correct to say that, now, none of the damage in terms of teacher losses is to take place, why have the parents, teachers, governors and children of Vale of Glamorgan been frightened witless by misleading information?

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sweeney: No, we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman—he was wrong on both the points he raised, and I must press on with my speech.
I am well aware that Councillor Stringer claims to have received a rough deal on the disaggregation that followed the abolition of South Glamorgan county council. Perhaps, instead of bleating about that a whole year after South Glamorgan council was abolished, he should address his remarks to his Labour colleague Councillor Russell Goodway, who appears—if Councillor Stringer is to be believed—to have negotiated a better deal for the people of Cardiff than Councillor Stringer managed for Vale of Glamorgan.
I fought long and hard for the abolition of South Glamorgan county council, because it did not give to Vale of Glamorgan the priority that it deserved. It was a remote authority, excessively top-heavy in bureaucracy, which deprived the people in the vale in order to spend money on the pet schemes of the majority Labour group in Cardiff. That was why I wanted to get rid of that council and have our own unitary authority in Vale of Glamorgan and, of course, I welcome the fact that that has happened.
What worries me now is that Vale of Glamorgan council seems to be making mistakes similar to those made by South Glamorgan county council. We all recall that South Glamorgan council was near the top of the league for receipts for education spending, but near the bottom of the league for the amount actually spent on education. When the figures are published, I shall be interested to see how much Vale of Glamorgan council is spending on administration and what proportion of the education budget is actually getting through to the children who matter most.
Another excuse offered by Labour councillors in the vale is that the formula whereby central Government resources are distributed to local authorities is unfair to Vale of Glamorgan. I point out that the distribution formula for 1997–98 was ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I assume that that body is even more heavily dominated by Labour supporters than Vale of Glamorgan council, so I can only speculate as to why Councillor Stringer, as a Labour council leader who also happens to be the agent for the Labour candidate for the Vale of Glamorgan constituency in the forthcoming general election, has been so ineffectual in persuading the consultative council that Vale of Glamorgan is hard done by.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that we have some excellent schools in Vale of Glamorgan, with good teachers, parents and pupils. We also have some good and conscientious governors, although it is a source of great regret to me that, due to the policy of Vale of Glamorgan council, Tory governors have been largely excluded. It is also a matter of regret that most of the governing bodies have not supported the principle of grant-maintained education, which could have done so much to help all the schools in my constituency.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that schools in Vale of Glamorgan are performing better than the Wales average, with 46 per cent. achieving five or more GCSE grades A to C, compared with 42 per cent. in Wales as a whole. The average A-level and AS-level point score is 17, compared with 16 in Wales as a whole. The performance of 11-year-olds has put the vale among the top three authorities in Wales, with 52.5 per cent. achieving the key stage 2 performance indicator, compared with 45 per cent. in Wales as a whole. I pay tribute to the parents, teachers and pupils in my schools.

Mr. Griffiths: And the local authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Unfortunately, I do not feel inclined to pay equal tribute to Vale of Glamorgan council, as that high level of achievement is unlikely to be maintained and improved unless the council spends more of its budget on education and finds ways of cutting administrative costs so that individual schools will receive more money.
It is appropriate for me to draw the attention of the House to some examples of profligate spending by Vale of Glamorgan council. It bleats about savage, but non-existent, cuts in its budget by the Welsh Office, when in reality it is spending money like water. I learned only today that the council is contemplating spending more than £1 million on refurbishing four leisure centres in the vale, at a time when, according to my information—I hope that I will be corrected—45 teachers face redundancy. The council has spent about £100,000 on a new foyer; it has built a new hospitality suite for councillors; and the new group room for Labour councillors has displaced officers, which has led to new office accommodation having to be rented. The council is spending about £60,000 on Barry Town football club. What makes me unhappy about that is that free tickets are distributed by the club to some privileged councillors.
Pagers, fax machines and mobile phones have been freely distributed. The leader of the Labour council receives a pager, a fax machine and a mobile phone. The deputy leader receives a fax machine and a mobile phone. The chief whip receives—

Mr. Griffiths: Do you have a fax?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Back-Bench debate for half an hour. Sedentary comments from any part of the House are not acceptable.

Mr. Sweeney: The deputy leader of the council receives a fax and a mobile phone. The chief whip receives a pager, a fax and a mobile phone. The leaders of the minority groups get a fax and a mobile phone.
All chairmen of committees receive a pager, a fax and a mobile phone. If the council is so hard up, how can it be spending money on things like that? Where do its priorities lie? Of course we want better leisure facilities and so on, but can anyone seriously doubt that we could make some savings in those budgets to help the children of the Vale, who represent our future?
I appreciate the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to the principle of allowing local authorities to take their own decisions. Naturally, in a democracy, that is important. However, I recall too well that the Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council and the neighbouring authorities failed to fund the police adequately. In the end, to combat rising crime, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, supported by the Welsh Office, took the dramatic decision to ring-fence police funding to ensure that the police received all the money that they desperately needed. The result has been 30 extra police officers in Vale of Glamorgan and a considerable drop in recorded crime during the past two years.
I have reluctantly reached the conclusion, as a result of the appalling mismanagement by Vale of Glamorgan council, that the only way in which we can ensure that our children receive the best possible education is to hypothecate education spending in the standard spending assessment and to conduct an urgent audit of authorities such as Vale of Glamorgan, to find out why they are failing dismally to run their affairs in a way calculated to protect our children's future.
The public in Vale of Glamorgan should know how much we pay our chief officers compared with the much larger South Glamorgan county council, which has been abolished, how top-heavy staffing levels are, what proportion of the education budget is spent on administration, what proportion gets through to the schools, and what proportion of the total budget is spent on education in comparison with other matters. I would welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that.
In conclusion, I make no apology for making a political point. If that is the way in which Councillor Stringer and his new Labour colleagues treat parents, teachers, governors and children, it illustrates very well why new Labour should not be trusted in local government, or at Westminster.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has performed a valuable service by drawing the attention of the House to the budget plans of Vale of Glamorgan council. As the debate unfolded, he illustrated the need for much greater accountability on the part of local government.
There has been use in our press of the word "cuts". In today's Western Mail, at least two articles referring specifically to budget items in Wales use that word. In neither of those instances is it explained that the cuts are not cuts in spending but cuts in the aspirations of local

authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, the budget of Vale of Glamorgan district council has been increased.

Mr. Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: It has indeed. In fact, the money available to the council to spend in the current financial year will increase to about £97,404,000.

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend will be aware of the scandalous way in which Conwy county borough council has deceived parents in my constituency. The council claims that there have been cuts in its budget. Will my hon. Friend nail that lie once and for all? Will he tell the House, the country and my constituents how much more cash Conwy county borough council will have to spend in the forthcoming financial year than it is spending this year?

Mr. Evans: I can tell my hon. Friend that his authority is the one for whom the capping principles have worked out best. It is allowed the biggest percentage increase in expenditure in Wales—an increase of more than £4 million.
If there is to be accountability, there must be a clear assessment of the way in which the funding made available to each authority is used. It is for local authorities to decide how much money to make available for spending on categories such as education. Performance tables of local authorities have been published, and the Audit Commission issued a report on their performance in 1995–96.
Authorities in Wales have undergone wide-scale reform, with the creation of the new unitary authorities. An interesting aspect of the accountability of the old county council was that South Glamorgan county council was one of the best-provided authorities in Wales, and the United Kingdom, but spent on its secondary school pupils the fourth lowest sum of any United Kingdom county council.
That is what accountability should be about. Newspapers should analyse the spending plans of councils instead of unquestioningly accepting press statements issued by authorities, talking about cuts, and echoing them in headlines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that he wanted sight of the budget of Vale of Glamorgan council. It appears that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has had sight of much more information than has been made available by the council to its elected representative. That is also a matter of accountability, to which our press might like to pay attention.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: Just a moment. I want to draw attention to some figures first.
In the last financial year, Vale of Glamorgan council gave a far lower priority to education in its spending than did very many authorities in Wales. Parents of nursery and primary school children in Vale of Glamorgan might like to note that last year, on average, nursery and primary schools in Vale of Glamorgan received £85 per capita less


than the Welsh average. Parents of secondary school pupils in Vale of Glamorgan might like to note that, per capita, £159 less was spent on secondary school pupils in Vale of Glamorgan than the Welsh average.

Mr. Griffiths: Those figures have been available from the council and in the Western Mail to be read by anyone. As early as 7 March 1997, the head teachers issued a joint statement with the council, saying that there would be no compulsory redundancies and no increase in class sizes. That has been in the papers too, and I cannot see how the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) did not know about that.

Mr. Evans: I refer merely to the two stories in the Western Mail today. Both talk about cuts; neither talks about the increased budget for expenditure for each of those councils. The day that I see journalists putting the full story before the electorate in Wales will be the day that I withdraw the remark.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bridgend got to his feet, because I have figures on the expenditure of Bridgend unitary council. He is the education spokesman for the Labour party in Wales, and he said today that parents in Vale of Glamorgan had nothing to worry about. Although spending in Vale of Glamorgan is significantly below the Welsh average, to observe the worst performance in investment in education per capita in Wales one need look no further than the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His friends and supporters provide the nursery and primary schools in his area with £233 per head less than the Welsh average. As if that were not bad enough, when those pupils get into secondary schools, the Labour-controlled council provides £339 per head less than the Welsh average.
From all this, it is clear that, when Labour councils are allowed to choose how much priority to give to education in their areas, they are all words and no action. Their action is confined to putting out press releases, organising marches and protests and talking about education underfunding. The only underfunding going on is the underfunding of schools by the Labour party, which controls so much of education in Wales.
As far as I am aware, the Labour party is offering only one pledge on education at this election. It is a pledge to skew resources from the parts of Wales where there are smaller classes to the parts where there are larger classes. It is no surprise to discover that the areas with the biggest classes are Labour authority areas, and the areas with the best investment in primary and secondary education are those not controlled by the Labour party. Those are the areas which, if Labour ever came to office, would be starved of resources: just as Labour has starved its own areas of resources.

MRSA

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My debate today is on the subject of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, to which I shall refer from here on as MRSA.
MRSA is a bacterium that is resistant to treatment by the usual range of antibiotics. Although it is not necessarily more virulent than other infections, the range of treatment options is more limited because of patients' resistance to the more commonly used antibiotics.
Many of us harbour MRSA without its causing us any harm, but carriers can pass it on to vulnerable patients with serious, sometimes fatal, consequences. MRSA contributes to the deaths of thousands of people in hospitals, yet it goes unrecorded and even unrecognised by the Department of Health.
The Government's failure to take measures to control MRSA is causing serious infections that are difficult to treat. That in turn leads to an increase in the drugs bill and in other treatment costs, and it can lead also to the need to close down wards and special units, thereby disrupting the running of hospitals. That will continue until and unless the Minister or his successor recognises that we face a problem of epidemic proportions.
The seriousness of the problem was demonstrated in May 1994 when a military hospital in Cambridge had to be closed for a week. Screening showed that there was a problem at the hospital, and the Ministry of Defence took rigorous preventive measures, including the application of antibiotics. It would be much more difficult to do the same in a national health service hospital; but the incident underscored how seriously the Ministry of Defence took the matter in a hospital for which it was responsible.
I became aware of MRSA after listening, in November of last year, to a moving speech in the other place by my good friend Lord Fitt of Belfast, whose wife, a lifelong sufferer from asthma, went into hospital to be treated for that condition but fell victim to MRSA and subsequently died. He drew the attention of the other place to the scale of the problem and to the hazards that it posed for people with respiratory complaints, people suffering from septicaemia, and in general the weak and the elderly.
More recently, one of my constituents also fell victim to MRSA. On 24 January he was admitted to Basildon hospital with a bad chest infection, later diagnosed as pneumonia. On 5 February his daughter was told that he had MRSA. Being of an inquiring mind and deeply concerned about her father's condition, she found out what MRSA was: that it is a life-threatening condition. She complained that the hospital had not been completely frank with her or explained the seriousness of the problem.
My constituent's daughter also asked whether anyone else had been infected. It was confirmed that a lady had recently been transferred to another hospital in the trust group where screening is performed, even though I understand that it is not done at Basildon hospital. Orsett hospital is in Thurrock; incidentally, the trust has tried in the past to close it down. It is still under threat—just another example, I suppose, of "what we have, quite rightly, we wish to hold".
On 6 February my constituent's daughter was told that her father had been given an antibiotic. She challenged that because the hospital had told her earlier that antibiotics


were not available to treat the condition. That caused some consternation at the other end of the telephone line. She was then told that her father was not actually being given an antibiotic to combat MRSA. Further inquiries elicited the information that Basildon hospital did not test for MRSA, as that was considered too expensive.
Unfortunately, my constituent died on 8 February. The death certificate mentioned pneumonia; it did not say that MRSA had made a big contribution to the death.
I did a bit of ferreting around in the Library and discovered that 15 hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is with me this morning, had already probed the Department about this tremendous scandal, but their efforts had hitherto not been fully co-ordinated; neither had the Government been arraigned for their dilatory stewardship. Furthermore, five Lords besides Lord Fitt, I discovered, had raised the matter in another place.
I then tabled my own questions, the answers to which revealed widespread ignorance on the part of the Minister and the Department of Health about which hospitals screen for MRSA. They had no knowledge of the incidence of the infection in the UK because of the lack of screening; they did not know which hospitals kept antibiotics to combat MRSA; and they clearly did not know the number of deaths in which it has been a contributory factor. I asked the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland parallel questions. Their replies, too, showed the same widespread ignorance of the scale of this epidemic—and breathtaking indifference to it.
The Minister was able to reveal, from the voluntary reporting undertaken by some hospitals, that 177 English hospitals had more than 19,000 patients affected by MRSA last year—up from 2,200 in 1992. But the total incidence of this virulent bacterium was unknown.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my hon. Friend made any international comparisons? One of the frightening things that I have learnt is that some other countries appear to have used antibiotics much more carelessly than we have, and are suffering from an epidemic of MRSA as a result. Cannot we learn from the mistakes that they have made?

Mr. Mackinlay: Certainly, but my charge this morning is that the Department of Health is doing very little in any direction and is indifferent to the size of the epidemic.
My replies from the Minister showed some confusion as well. He said that some new treatment was still at an early stage of development, but he also told me in a separate answer that two antibiotics are effective against all strains of MRSA—yet many hospitals, including Basildon, do not stock them. It appears to be the luck of the draw; someone may be taken to a hospital that has the drug, whereas someone else may not. My constituent's daughter was told that the antibiotics were not available. I suspect that the truth is that there were cost implications. That is the most worrying aspect of all.
From the limited answers that I was able to obtain, it became increasingly clear that while the contagion remained static between 1989 and 1991, it had increased by 8.1 per cent. by 1994. However, by the first half of 1995, it had increased by 13.5 per cent.
I also asked what was recorded on death certificates. My constituent's death certificate did not mention MRSA, and I understand that Lady Fitt's death certificate did not state

that MRSA had contributed to her death. Ironically—my question shows how these matters are treated in this country—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to answer the question on death certificates. I cannot help feeling that that shows that the matter has budgetary implications.
It is clear that, in many of our hospitals, doctors are not fulfilling the conditions and instructions that they are given on completing death certificates. They are charged with giving the primary cause of death, but in the second part of the form they are supposed to say what else contributed to the death. Doctors are not mentioning MRSA, either through ignorance or because they are being leaned on to cover up and keep quiet the fact that the disease contributes to so many deaths. If doctors do not fulfil those requirements, they are not behaving professionally and are vulnerable to litigation. They must be much more frank with the loved ones of people to whose deaths MRSA has contributed.
What is the Minister doing to prevent and contain the spread of MRSA outside hospitals? His Department seems breathtakingly complacent. We know that the disease presents a problem in nursing homes; to pretend otherwise is irresponsible. I understand that the brief that the Minister will read to us in a few moments says that he has issued a leaflet to nursing homes. That is as effective as banging on a door with a wet sponge. It does not underline the seriousness of the problem.
The Department of Health is reluctant to do anything about the problem, because it has budgetary implications for the nursing home service. Moreover, hospitals do not want to recognise the problem because of its budgetary implications. In short, there is a conspiracy of silence. There is wilful ignorance, on the part both of the NHS establishment in Whitehall and of hospitals and other agencies, which do not want to recognise the scale of the problem. Consequently, good people are being put in jeopardy and deaths caused unnecessarily.
When I was ferreting around in the Library, I came across a document that I believe the Department of Health placed there inadvertently. It is a working party report that gives guidelines for the control of epidemic MRSA. It was prepared by Mr. G. Duckworth, secretary to the working party on hospital infection, and it was published in August 1990. I believe that the Department did not mean the document to be in the Library, but meant some other document to be there. Under the heading, "Cost implications of EMRSA", the document says:
Infection control costs are always difficult to assess, but there is general agreement that the costs of ignoring strains of EMRSA are higher than those of controlling them, particularly when the costs of potential legal action are included. Litigation by an infected patient is a growing hazard of MRSA outbreaks in hospitals and it is therefore important to demonstrate that well-documented and effective control measures are implemented.
No such effective control measures are being implemented by the NHS. It is an extremely patchy map, and the document goes on to give some of the costs involved.
The document also says that great care needs to be taken in ambulances. The information that I have from going round the ambulance service is that the recommended procedure is not being applied by the ambulance service. People will be infected in our ambulances because the Government refuse to recognise the cost implications and the scale of the scandal. It is sometimes hazardous to be in an ambulance where the proper control procedures have not been applied.
The document also refers to the fact that agency staff in hospitals may be MRSA carriers. I return to the point that I made at the beginning: there is inadequate screening in hospitals of patients and staff. In hospitals with a high staff turnover—agency staff go from one hospital where they might be screened to another where they are not—the danger of increasing infection is enormous. I hope that people who read our deliberations will demand to see a copy of the document to which I referred. Has the Minister read it? I want to be charitable to him and say that the Department has probably not told him the naked truth about the scale of the problem, and he may not have seen the document until I pursued the matter with his private office.
The real problem is cost. The noble Baroness Cumberlege alluded to that in the debate in another place to which I referred earlier. I implore the Minister to be bold and to understand that failure to recognise the problem and deal with it immediately means that a bigger burden on the NHS is looming. It will be dealt with by another Minister, because the Government will lose the election. I do not wish to speak in a party political manner today; I am simply frustrated at the Government's failure to recognise the big additional burden on the NHS budget. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will hear about MRSA time and again, whether or not I am in the House after the election, because the problem will not go away. Whoever occupies the Treasury Bench will have to deal with it.
I cannot help but recall that this Government refused to recognise the problems of E. coli, Gulf war syndrome and, until late in the day and at enormous cost, mad cow disease. MRSA is a problem of similar proportions. It beggars belief that the Department of Health has not addressed it with greater skill, determination and resolve before now.
Hospitals have also tried to keep the problem under drapes and have displayed wilful ignorance. If the debate achieves nothing else, it will flag up to hospital trusts the fact that the possibility of litigation is enormous. The Department of Health, too, will be vulnerable to litigation, because the debate is making it clear on the Floor of the House that this is a large-scale problem. Even if the Department of Health and the hospital trusts do not listen, their insurers will. They must know that there is a significant possibility of substantial damage claims by the loved ones of people who have died as a consequence of the indifference to and lack of planning on combating MRSA. Doctors will be vulnerable to the charge of not behaving professionally if they do not complete death certificates in a full and comprehensive manner, as is their duty.
Local newspaper editors throughout the country must ask their hospitals whether they screen for MRSA and, if not, why not. They must ask whether they follow the isolation procedures set down in documents to be found in corners of the House of Commons Library, rather than being flagged up as instructions to hospital trusts, and, if not, why not. They must ask whether ambulances follow the procedures laid down and, if not, why not. They must ask whether the hospitals stock the appropriate antibiotics and, if not, why not. They must also ask whether the hospital knows in how many instances MRSA has contributed to death and, if not, why not.
What support is the Department of Health giving to Professor Brian Austen of Heriot-Watt university, in developing a new drug to combat MRSA? Has the

Department considered new products that I understand are being developed—basically paints and cleaners—that kill all known microbes and, if used within hygiene management programmes, minimise some of the super-bugs such as MRSA?
I am sorry if I have spoken in rather trenchant terms, but in the five years that I have been in the House, I have rarely felt so strongly about what I consider to be an NHS establishment cover-up. I do not charge any one individual, but believe that, nationally and locally, the national health service has recognised the problem, but has been afraid that it will throw its budgets out of proportion and that Ministers and incoming Ministers will be embarrassed. The problem has therefore been swept under the carpet, which is why I called this wilful ignorance.
I appeal to the Minister in his remaining period in office to give forthright instructions to everyone concerned to address the problem. I hope that he will ensure that his successor picks that up after the general election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), even though he has left me only 11 minutes to do so. He made an extremely concerned speech, on which I congratulate him. The issue causes concern not only to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but to many people outside the House, and rightly so.
It is important to get the matter in perspective. We should acknowledge the problem, but it has existed for many years—indeed, decades. The hon. Member for Thurrock was ill advised to introduce party politics and matters such as E. coli. The problem has existed under both parties in government. It has not arisen overnight—it has been there for decades. I want the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, and I am glad that he is nodding to that effect.
The problem is containable, and the United Kingdom has an excellent record in containing it. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a failure to control the MRSA problem on the part of hospitals and the Department. That is not the case. Infection control is strong in the UK. We are a world leader in the control of MRSA and other infections.
Health authorities require all hospitals to have adequate infection control systems in place, and control teams must coverall facilities. Of course, from time to time, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in connection with a Ministry of Defence hospital, fairly extreme isolation measures must be taken. They are taken when necessary, and our infection control methods are world leaders.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke about international comparisons. One of the reasons why we are a world leader in the field is that we issue antibiotics only on prescription. Some other countries do not do that. That is one reason why they have epidemics, which we manage to avoid. We keep control at that level as well, not only through what we rightly demand of our hospitals, through the contracts that we impose on them, through health authorities and by other means. The charge of failure to control is ill founded. Hospitals take considerable measures to control the problem and are world leaders in that respect.
The matter has been debated before, as the hon. Member for Thurrock knows. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised it in an Adjournment debate in December 1995, and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised it as part of another Adjournment debate a year later. The issue has therefore been discussed in Parliament. I insist that there is no indifference, ignorance or conspiracy of silence on the Government's part. I am glad to have the matter discussed in the House.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, MRSA is a relatively antibiotic-resistant form of the bacterium staph. aureus, which is one of the commonest and most ubiquitous of all the bacteria with which we are surrounded. As many as one in three of us are carrying it—on our skin or in our nose or throat—and normally it does us no harm. It does, however, have the ability to cause infection, which is most likely to occur if the skin is cut or if resistance to infection is lost or compromised for any other reason.
Mostly, the type of infection will be trivial, but for patients who are in hospital, it can sometimes be serious, as the hon. Gentleman noted. Many hospital patients have catheters and drips of various sorts going into their body, which provide an easy route for bacteria such as staph. aureus. Many patients have had operations, so they have a wound that can become infected. Some have poor resistance to infection because of their illness or their treatment, and are vulnerable to serious infection such as septicaemia or pneumonia. Staph. aureus can cause all those problems—a range of infections from the trivial to the life-threatening.
MRSA acts in exactly the same way as staph. aureus and causes the same range of infections. It is no worse than staph. aureus; it is simply a particular kind of staph. aureus. Eight out of 10 people who carry MRSA come to no harm at all. If it does cause an infection, the range of problems is just the same. The infections are no worse than those caused by the ordinary bacterium.
The reason why MRSA is seen as more of a problem is that, if an infection develops, it is more difficult to treat because many of the commonly used antibiotics are no longer effective against it. However, I repeat that the infection is treatable. As I said to the hon. Member for Thurrock, and as he confirmed in his remarks, at least two antibiotics are effective against MRSA.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister comment on the point that my hon. Friend eloquently highlighted: do we know how many people are dying from such an infection, and how many hospitals have a good record or a bad record? There must be public recognition of the extent of the problem. The Minister is playing it down. May we have some facts and figures, and some visibility?

Mr. Horam: I am about to come to that. First, I should like to say, in response to the hon. Member for Thurrock, that all hospitals will have stocks of the antibiotics necessary to treat MRSA. Whether those antibiotics are used is a clinical decision. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
On the extent of the problem, to which both hon. Gentlemen referred, I repeat that it is not new. The media have only recently taken an interest in it, but it has existed for a long time. Official figures from the Public Health Laboratory Service show that the peak of the problem occurred in 1986. I have figures from 1983 to 1996. The

problem fluctuates as various strains come and go, as various antibiotics deal with the various strains and as new ones develop. We may be at a higher point than previously, but not as high as a decade ago. The problem is not worse than it has ever been in this country.
To add to the information from the Public Health Laboratory Service, two big surveys were conducted, in 1980 and 1992–93. They show a constant proportion of MRSA in the system. It was no worse in 1992–93 than in 1980.
Let us also get in perspective the number of patients affected. I stated in a reply to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions that there were 2,107 incidents last year in the entire health service. In any one year, 8.4 million people go into the hospital service.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister does not know that, does he? That figure represents only what has been voluntarily reported to him. My complaint is that his Department does not know, because it does not require screening in all hospitals and reporting by all hospitals.

Mr. Horam: Those figures come from the Public Health Laboratory Service, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a well-established service that serves the needs of hospitals and which they have an obvious self-interest in developing and complying with. There is trust and confidence in the service, which provides us with a reasonable feel for what is happening on the ground floor.
It is not right to say that there is no information. I have given quite a lot of information to the hon. Gentleman. There is a plethora of information, because the PHLS makes weekly and monthly reports on infections such as MRSA. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that there is any kind of cover-up. A wealth of information is available from a tried and trusted system.
The hon. Gentleman accuses the Department of not doing enough about the problem. We are improving our information. We are piloting a new system of national surveillance, and 40 hospitals in total have taken part. From next month or shortly afterwards, bloodstream infections will be reported. In July, wound infections will be reported. In addition to the extensive information already available, that new information will become available.
There are differing expert opinions on the validity, practicality and worth of large-scale screening. The practical problems are plain. Screening for MRSA requires swabs from different parts of the body on different days. It takes at least a fortnight to go through the testing procedures. If someone is going into hospital for an emergency operation, we cannot tell him to wait for a fortnight while we find out whether he has MRSA. There are practical problems, which the hon. Gentleman should understand.
Where there are vulnerable people in vulnerable wards, screening takes place. That is a good example of a practical approach to deal with the worst of problems. A new national surveillance scheme is to be introduced—

It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

KINGS COLLEGE LONDON BILL[Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 25 March.

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)

Motion made and Question proposed,

That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;

(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Thursday of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;

(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;

(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;

(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;

(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;

(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill has been referred to a Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;

(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Business (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Friday, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;

(11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

(12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;

(13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

(14) where any Standing Orders have been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

(15) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;

(16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Speaker: No day named.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Privatised Utilities

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to modify the powers of the regulators of the privatised utilities. [19426]

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities. [19444]

Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities. [19450]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Government receive representations on the regulation of the privatised utilities from time to time and have recently received a copy of the report of the independent Commission on the Regulation of Privatised Utilities.

Mr. Williams: When the privatised utilities make profits of over £10 billion a year with a rate of return of 20, 15 and even over 40 per cent., is it not clear, as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has said, that the initial price controls unduly favoured shareholders over consumers? As a former energy Minister has said, we need a radical overhaul of utility regulation. Would not that provide the best tax cuts of all that would benefit most people on the lowest incomes?

Mr. Taylor: The Labour party never seems to have any word of approval for success. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry report, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, stated:
Customers get over 70 per cent. of efficiency improvements while shareholders get under 30 per cent.
If the Labour party would like to take its last chance to come clean on a windfall tax, I can assure it that consumers, customers, small shareholders and pension fund beneficiaries would like to know its position.

Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind that 10 regional electricity companies have already been taken over and that there is another takeover in the pipeline—quite a few takeovers have involved United States companies, including Yorkshire Electricity—does not the Minister agree that we must toughen the regulations and give more power to the regulator so that company accounts are more transparent and there is greater defence of the consumer? If the Government do not adopt that approach, the new regulator will be nothing more than a paper tiger.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's homework will lead him to the conclusion that mergers are for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, likewise, matters of fair trading are for the Office of Fair Trading. Meanwhile, I do not think that anyone could say that the

regulators lack powers or accountability. They are answerable to consumers, the MMC, Select Committees, the National Audit Office and judicial review. That is a great deal of accountability.

Mr. Loyden: Can the Minister really claim that the regulators have been forceful enough in making those companies—which are near-monopolies—respond to their first responsibility: to provide a good service to consumers? Most of the so-called efficiency in those industries is gained by scrapping jobs. That is one reason why the employment figures in this nation are so high.

Mr. Taylor: The fact of the matter is that the new arrangements—to which Labour did not, of course, subscribe, and which it has hindered all the way—have brought very considerable benefits to consumers, in increased standards of service and lower prices. The price of domestic gas is down by 20 per cent. and British Telecom charges are down by 40 per cent. in real terms. Those are significant benefits to consumers.

Dr. Hampson: As a member of the Select Committee, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two points? The Committee pointed out that, in the early stages, the gains to shareholders could not have been accurately assessed because no one knew how far they could be quantified. Moreover, the evidence of Professor Littlechild, printed by the Committee, is that he "dealt"—that is the word— with the windfall in the early stages by transforming the price reviews thereafter to the point at which this country now has the cheapest electricity and gas for industrial users of any country in Europe.

Mr. Taylor: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House. Those privatisations have been remarkable achievements. They were all original. They were entirely new in terms of system and method, but the results are outstanding.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask the chairmen of the public utility companies to calculate and publish their estimates of what the increase in costs might be if any Government saw fit to introduce a windfall tax, so that the consumer can know now what the increase in the cost of gas, electricity and telephone calls would be?

Mr. Taylor: The challenge for my right hon. Friend is very important, and I think that I am allowed to say on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade that the answer is yes, we will seek those costings. The electorate will want to know what they are, as will consumers, small shareholders and pension fund beneficiaries.

Mr. Dover: Does the Minister accept that all my constituents think that the regulators have done a marvellous job in keeping prices down? Will he pay tribute to the privatised utilities, which have made enormous efficiency savings and gains, to the benefit of everyone across the country?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been great efficiency savings and reductions in prices, but Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in anything that is good for consumers. However, I remind them that we are.

Mr. Harvey: In the light of the obvious need to review the powers of regulators, and in the light of the growth of competition, which is welcome, is not it time to consider the creation of an office for the regulation of all the utilities together? It could share expertise and experience, ensure consistency of approach and avoid duplication and would be a really powerful regulator across all these industries.

Mr. Taylor: I have heard arguments and quite constructive debate along those lines, but it would be wiser to have a little more experience of the good operation of the present system, whereupon it would be quite proper to return to the consideration that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the late 1970s, the then nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £500 million a year in subsidy? Will he confirm that, for the past seven years, the privatised industries have contributed on average nearly £9 billion each year? Does not that demonstrate that Labour's hostility to privatisation would have caused much damage to this country and its industry in the 1980s and 1990s, just as the windfall tax would do if they were ever in a position to put it in place?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to return to the warnings about a windfall tax. The turnaround that he described has indeed been spectacular, and the main beneficiary has been the consumer.

Mr. Battle: Are not the Government's claims of energy price cuts proving to be another great Tory myth? Is the Minister aware that, as he spelled out in his written reply to me on 25 February, Britain is 11th out of 15 in the European league tables showing reductions in prices to residential electricity consumers since 1990, which is after privatisation? Is he aware that even Greece has cut prices by more than a quarter during that period?
The truth is that prices in Britain have risen in real terms. The Minister admitted as such, so will he now accept that as the truth at the Dispatch Box? The Tories' record shows that current domestic prices are well up on 1990 prices. Labour will address regulatory reform to put the consumer first for a change. Consumers have been short-changed under this Government, and they will be better off under Labour.

Mr. Taylor: That was a diatribe, not a question. But if it was a question, the answer is no.

Ceramics Industry

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the ceramics industry. [19441]

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Greg Knight): The United Kingdom ceramics industry has a distinguished history of achievement both at home and overseas, and is widely recognised as a worldwide centre of excellence for materials and technology.
However, a changing world environment and intensified competition pose new challenges that must be overcome if the UK is to improve and maintain its performance. To that end, the Government are working in partnership with the industry, not least through the tableware strategy group,

to help it to achieve its objectives, and to address the specific issues that are crucial to maintaining and building on the success of the industry.

Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance to the national economy of the ceramics industry, and in particular to my constituency of Congleton, which borders the potteries? Is he aware that the interests of the industry are threatened by cheap imports from China, which, because of its state-controlled economy, is able to dump products on the European market at prices that bear little relation to costs? Will he endorse the European Commission's position and support the existing quota restrictions on Chinese imports of tableware to maintain the present position, and to maintain and perhaps enhance investment and employment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the ceramics industry. In Britain, it employs about 25,000 people, so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend made a good point about the need to ensure that other countries do not dump ceramic ware on the market, thereby destroying jobs in this country. A quota system is in force to protect the industry from imports from China, and is subject to annual review. The Commission submitted a report to the Council on 31 January 1997, but it has yet to submit to the Council any formal proposals for amending the current regime. We shall consider carefully any suggested amendments, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
My hon. Friend is a widely respected Member of the House, and if she is aware of any particular difficulty affecting any company in or near her constituency, I would be prepared to meet her to discuss the matter further.

Petroleum Coke

Mr. Hardy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent the use of petroleum coke for the purpose of electricity generation. [19442]

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Any proposal to use a fuel at a power station must satisfy the appropriate regulatory requirements.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister deny that petroleum coke is a particularly dirty fuel? The licence that is currently being processed will be viewed with bitter disfavour in my region. Does he accept that, if that fuel is burned in Yorkshire, it will serve as evidence of the Government's disdain for our international environment commitments, and will show the critical nature of coal stocks. It will also provide a final commentary on the Government's deplorable handling of the British coal industry.

Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to the House and asking me my one question for today, rather than withdrawing a question that I was due to answer, as all the other Opposition Members have.
The Environment Agency has permitted the trial. It will regulate the trial throughout to ensure that it operates within authorisation, and will be able to withdraw authorisation if the trial exceeds any of the limits that have been laid down.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the decision to go ahead is a matter for National Power, not for the Government. We all know the mistakes involved in trying to second-guess industry; we also know the supreme results that are being achieved through privatisation. Domestic electricity prices have fallen by 4.6 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, including VAT, and prices for industry have dropped by 14.8 per cent. I know what that means, and the House knows what it means: it means lower costs, more sales and more jobs.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister talks of not second-guessing industry, but does he not accept that the amount of pollution caused by the various methods of generating electricity is a matter of public concern? Does he not accept that Government have a responsibility to devise a mechanism, whether through tax or by other means, to ensure the maximisation of clean sources of electricity production—whether through hydro, tidal or other sources—and to minimise the amount of electricity that is produced from dirty sources, especially those generating an undue proportion of carbon?

Mr. Page: Let me say, as Minister in charge of the non-fossil fuel obligation, that only two weeks ago I announced the largest round of the non-fossil fuel obligation programmes. I sincerely hope that much more "green" electricity will be produced in this country. As for what the hon. Gentleman says about this type of fuel, I know that £1 billion has been spent on flue gas desulphurisation in the Drax and Ratcliffe plants, and I am certain that the Environment Agency will not allow generation to proceed if it produces the levels of pollution to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Manufactured Exports

Mr. Garnier: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures for manufactured exports from the east midlands. [19443]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Separate regional figures are not available, but nationally the figure for manufactured exports for 1996 was £139 billion, with east midlands companies making a full contribution. That represents a 9 per cent. increase in both value and volume when compared with manufactured exports for 1995.

Mr. Garnier: On behalf of manufacturers in my constituency and throughout the east midlands, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to promote British exports in his capacity as Minister responsible for export trade. It was with great regret that we learned that he was retiring from the House.
May I remind my hon. Friend that the economic picture in the east midlands has never been better, and that business confidence has never been brighter? That is evidenced by longer order books, and by the increasing number of jobs that are being created in the manufacturing and exporting sectors in the east midlands. Does my hon. Friend agree—has it been his experience when he has travelled abroad on behalf of the United Kingdom—that all that would be put at risk if we were to invite a Labour

Government into this country, given all the Labour party's job-destroying activities and its fondness for the social chapter and the minimum wage?

Mr. Nelson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his generous remarks. It has been a pleasure to keep this Treasury seat warm for him, so that he can take it up in the next Parliament.
I entirely concur, without reservation, with all that my hon. and learned Friend says. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen, I will tell them that there is even better news for the east midlands. According to the respected body, Business Strategies and Cambridge Econometrics, the east midlands is set to become the fastest growing region in the country. That is largely due to the successful revival of manufacturing industry, which, in turn, is entirely due to the success of the Government's policies.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that, a week after we had that crowded meeting in Chichester and 100 people were turned away because they would not fit into the town hall, he decided to throw in the towel?
As for the east midlands, is the Minister aware that, following the closure of all the mines in the area, many of the industries that used to supply hydraulic and other equipment to the pits had to close completely because they had lost their home market, and that therefore many potential exports were also lost? There is another story about the east midlands: a story of despair. As many as 50 per cent. are unemployed in some of the former pit villages, and, following the closure of the mines, there is opencast mining all over the counties. The net result is that imports are now coming in to replace the coal that should have been produced by British miners.

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman will always be welcome in the constituency that I represent. Labour traditionally loses its deposit in Chichester and, by and large, we try to encourage the Labour candidates there. Anything that he can do to help the Labour candidate at the expense of the Liberal Democrat will be welcome. The hon. Gentleman's visit had nothing to do with my decision. The real test will be at the election and I have no doubt who the worthy constituents of Chichester will return on that day.
With regard to the east midlands, it is as if Labour Members do not remember the despair a few years ago in some regions, the unemployment, the difficulties and the lack of hope, which have been transformed by the Government's policies. Unemployment has fallen significantly, and production and prosperity have increased. The Labour party is always in favour of regulation, taxation, state spending and state regulation. It is always the impediment to free enterprise and to prosperity. It always has been and it always will be.

Mr. Tredinnick: May I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in supporting the export drive in the east midlands, thank him personally as my Member of Parliament for many years, and wish him a happy retirement on his last day at the Dispatch Box? Is he aware that the tremendous investment in my constituency at companies such as Triumph, Wace and Deluxe UK Ltd has meant that there is a new export drive based in


Hinckley? Is he also aware that a recent survey has shown that, if a minimum wage is introduced and a social chapter of the European Union is implemented, at least 1,000 jobs will be lost in Hinckley?

Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was pleased to come to Hinckley and to see for myself many of the successes to which he refers. It is undoubtedly true that the east midlands has led the way in many of the exports and indeed inward investments that have been so spectacular. No small part of that is the fact that we do not have the overbearing costs associated with the social chapter. It is remarkable that the east midlands is also leading the way in some of our principal new exports. For example, the UK is now the largest exporter in Europe of computers, of televisions and of semi-conductors. That truly remarkable performance is entirely associated with the Government's consistent policies of sound economic and industrial management.

Mr. Bell: It is also the last Question Time for my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and we should wish him well in his retirement after his many years of service to the House. May I also associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)? It is the last appearance of the Minister for Trade, who has been an eloquent spokesman and defender of our interests. I remember a half-hour speech that he made recently without a note and while suffering from a cold. That was testimony to his perseverance and persistence in our interests.
In relation to our £139 billion-worth of exports and to the east midlands, as we had some refreshing honesty from a former Minister with responsibility for transport about how defective our road building programme was, can the Minister explain with the same refreshing honesty why we have had a trade deficit since 1983 on our manufactured goods and why our deficit last year was £12.5 billion—£1 billion a month? Can he explain how that has come about in the past 13 years of a Tory Government?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, but first may I tell the hon. Gentleman how grateful I am for his kind words? He knows that I am leaving the House voluntarily. In case it should prove that in the course of the next few weeks he does so involuntarily, may I, too, say that it has been nice doing business with him?
As for the size of the deficit, the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the figures for goods. Our trade in services is of almost the same value as our trade in goods, and if we take the figures for services, and add the third component of the current account—account movements, dividends and incomes from foreign investments—we find that this country is pretty much in the black.
We have a very small deficit. According to Treasury estimates it looks as if the deficit for the past year, on a turnover of about $1 trillion on our current account, will be about £1 billion or £2 billion. That represents a remarkable performance. It reflects a huge burgeoning of activity on both the manufactured goods and the services front, and the results of huge investments abroad. Remember that those investments have taken place under the liberal policies that the Government have followed since 1979. The deficit is only 1.5 per cent. of GDP, and the deficit under a Labour Government was double that size.

Aircraft (Launch Aid)

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what launch aid has been provided by his Department towards British industrial participation in each of the main aircraft variants produced by the Airbus consortium. [19445]

Mr. Greg Knight: Launch aid has supported British participation in two main aircraft produced by the Airbus consortium. A total of £249.3 million was provided for the Airbus A320 and a total of £447.1 million for the Airbus A330/340.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the fact that both the wings and the power plants are produced in the United Kingdom, is not the recent order secured by Airbus Industrie for up to 23 A330 aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce Trent engines, testimony to the competitiveness of British industry, especially in that sector, which has consistently run a balance of payments surplus since 1980, and which should bring to the Department of Trade and Industry royalties on sales of about half a billion pounds over the next five years? That is a true success story, symptomatic of success under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right. That is tremendous news. By the time the Emirates take delivery of the order they will have invested about $1 billion in British industry recently. That is good news for the aircraft industry, for Rolls-Royce, for the east midlands and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Sanctions (Libya)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report column 905, if he will make it his policy to identify separately those representations from British firms relating to Libya which directly relate to UN sanctions. [19446]

Mr. Nelson: A good many representations to the Department of Trade and Industry on trade with Libya relate to United Nations sanctions. However, it is not the Government's policy to publicise confidential exchanges that the Department has with individual companies.

Mr. Dalyell: In the St. Albans Crown court, why did Judge Colston stop an important case—Regina v. Rees and Rotheroe—and describe the Department of Trade and Industry's behaviour as an "affront to justice"? Those were the judge's words, not mine. Is this Matrix Churchill revisited?

Mr. Nelson: No, it is not. I am the Minister accountable for that part of the Department, and I have looked carefully into the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am satisfied that there has been no deception and no deliberate withholding of documents required for the courts. There are sometimes genuine practical problems in tracing from thousands of files every document that may be needed. I do not deny that there are occasionally mistakes and inadequacies. We attempt to investigate and correct those, and whenever they are apparent we draw them to the attention of the public or


of Parliament or, in this case, we draw them immediately to the attention of the courts. I therefore do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's allegation is well founded. Of course there are other aspects in which I know that he has taken an interest, and about which he spoke in the House this morning in connection with trade with Libya. I have noted those with care.

Investment

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the benefits to the United Kingdom of (a) inward and (b) overseas investment. [19447]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): overseas-owned companies provide a third of all manufactured investment in the UK, nearly a fifth of manufacturing employment, over a fifth of manufacturing output and around two fifths of UK manufactured exports. The United Kingdom is itself the second largest outward investor in the world, receiving substantially more income, interest and dividends from its ownership of companies overseas than is paid out to those overseas who own companies in Britain.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is an extraordinary account of the success of the Conservative Government? There is no question that our inward investment has created an enormous number of jobs, and our outward investment has helped not only with jobs in this country, but resulted in one of the greatest dividend flows into this country since the second world war. We are enormously better off, and pensioners have benefited because a lot of the money that comes back to this country does so in the form of dividends, which go into pension funds.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and it is remarkable that this country is the second largest in the world—after the United States—in terms of both outward and inward investment. Our outward investment stock is valued at more than £200 billion, and generated earnings of £24 billion to this country in 1995. We have an exceptional inward investment record, and a large number of companies from around the world are locating in this country because we deliver quality goods at competitive prices. In doing so, we have generated a substantial extension in employment.

Mr. MacShane: What does the Secretary of State have to say about the decision of Toyota, announced this week, to build its new car plant in France? This follows hard on the heels of Ford switching production and jobs from Liverpool to Germany and Spain. Has not much of our inward investment in recent years been on the basis of Britain being fully in Europe? Is not the message now to the boardrooms of the world that the Tory Cabinet is divided on, and hostile and opposed to, Europe? Until we drain the poison from the "Euroseptics" in the Cabinet and replace them with a Government committed to working and playing a leading role in Europe, more and more companies like Toyota and Ford will turn their backs on the UK.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Toyota has taken no such decision and,

along with Nissan, Honda, Ford and others, has reinforced its commitment to this country year after year with massive investment. Toyota is in the process of creating more than 1,000 jobs in Derbyshire as a result of massive investment. We have attracted more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe, and that figure will rise—it is running at 56 per cent. in the current year. That is a measure of the strength of the United Kingdom which, under a Conservative Government, is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest.

Design Industry

. Dr. Twinn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the contribution the design industry makes to the United Kingdom economy. [19448]

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The design consultancy industry alone contributes more than £3 billion to the UK economy. I have announced the millennium product award to bring forward 2,000 new products to demonstrate the excellence of British design, the best of which will be displayed at the millennium exhibition.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that exciting news for the British design industry. Does he agree that the best way for British industry to contribute to increasing its competitiveness in the world is to invest in British industrial design? In doing so, our industry can take a step forward in the world and become even more competitive.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely accurate. More British companies must realise that design plays a key role at every stage of the manufacturing process, and is not just a bolt-on exercise. The reputation of British design around the world is underpinned by the fact that £350 million a year in consultancy fees is attributable to the British design consultancy industry. That indicates the reputation of British designers abroad, and we must make better use of them in this country.

Mr. Sheerman: Does not the lack of indigenous investment mean that fewer of our excellent designers are employed here by British companies, making those companies more competitive overseas? We have some of the best designers in the world, but too many of them go abroad to work for foreign companies, and between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work of the top consultancies is for foreign companies. Surely it is a mark of the Government's failure that we cannot keep good designers working for British firms.

Mr. Taylor: It is an indication of how succesful the Government are in anticipating some of the problems for British industry that we have 53 design consultants in business links around the country, that I have pioneered many of the steps forward for British design in its relationship with government, that we have announced the millennium product award to ensure that British design products are on display at the millennium exhibition, and that the Design Council is going from strength to strength under John Sorrell and Andrew Summers. This is a great tribute to what we are doing, and we are looking for equal enthusiasm from British industry.

Inward Investment

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment has come to the United Kingdom in each of the past three years from (a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) Germany and (d) other countries; how many jobs have been created as a result; and if he will make a statement. [19449]

Mr. Lang: In 1992 to 1994, the last three-year period for which comparable data are available, inward investment from the United States of America amounted to £11 billion, from Japan nearly £200 million, from Germany £2 billion and nearly £12 billion from the rest of the world. Those figures are taken from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1996".
Invest in Britain Bureau records show that about 215,000 jobs have either been created or safeguarded by projects announced over that period.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are brilliant figures, which are attributable to the success of this Government's policies, in huge contrast to the policies of the predecessor Labour Administration, although that was a long time ago? Is not the Government's attitude to enterprise that which the Governments he mentioned most want? That is why the money comes here. Does he agree that that is in contrast to the policies and thrust of the Labour party, which would decimate those figures within a short time if ever a Labour Government were elected, which they must not be?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those figures represent the world's verdict on the United Kingdom as an attractive location for investment—an enterprise-friendly location with low corporate taxation; good communications and infrastructure; a good, skilled, productive work force; and a commitment to helping to make projects a great success. The threat that hangs over inward investment as a result of the Opposition's policy agenda cannot be exaggerated. The burdens of the social chapter and the European social model would destroy jobs and frighten off inward investment, just as they have in the rest of Europe.

Dr. Godman: I welcome that investment, but may I remind the Secretary of State that, where American investment is concerned, IBM came to Greenock more than 45 years ago, largely at the prompting of the local Labour Member of Parliament, Hector McNeil? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, IBM is still a major employer in the west of Scotland. Since then, there have been many other inward investors, but does he agree that not enough of them are setting up research and development facilities? Locate in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and his Department are failing to persuade investors to set up research and development centres.

Mr. Lang: I acknowledge the fact that IBM has been here for getting on for half a century. It is one of 4,200 American companies that have located in the UK. I do not agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's point about research and development activities. The quality of

investments coming to the United Kingdom has risen substantially in recent years, and a substantial proportion are not only reinvestments and expansions by existing companies, but associated with some research and development. Indeed, the strength of our academic institutions has been one of the other factors that has attracted such investment, but it could easily be frightened away by the policies of an incoming Labour Government if they abandoned the enterprise-friendly, low corporate tax policies of this Government, which have been so successful in encouraging our competitiveness and attracting investment.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the reasons why Isuzu decided to invest in a joint manufacturing operation with Leyland Trucks in my constituency, employing many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), were the reasons that he just enunciated—a low-cost economy that is successful as a direct result of Conservative policies, which must continue if the likes of Isuzu are to come here again?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is right. Japanese investors set demanding targets for productivity and efficiency. They have recognised the strength of the United Kingdom, which is why we are securing in the present year more than half of all the Japanese investment in the European Union.

Science Base

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from British industry on the organisation of the United Kingdom science base. [19451]

Mr. Ian Taylor: I frequently meet representatives of industry to discuss the science and engineering base, not least in connection with the Year of Engineering Success and the current Science Engineering and Technology Week.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Pharmaceutical Industries Council, the infrastructure and equipment in many of our universities are seriously eroded and science graduates no longer have the practical skills that industry needs? Is that not an appalling indictment of 18 years of Tory neglect?

Mr. Taylor: It might be an appalling indictment if it were true, but as George Poste of SmithKline Beecham, who had dinner with me on Monday evening and is now better briefed, will admit, the problem in our universities, particularly for the pharmaceutical industry, is that students have to deal with such rapid technological change that not only the universities, but the companies that those students will eventually enter, have difficulty keeping up.
I have suggested virtual centres of excellence and much more work in companies for some of our finest undergraduates and postgraduates. That collaborative spirit will underpin the excellence of the scholarship in our universities and our research. We are in it together, and must look for solutions together.

Sir John Cope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that much scientific research and development of the best


quality is also done in industry? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, some of it is done by firms that have invested in this country: for example, the Hewlett-Packard laboratories on the edge of my constituency are the only laboratories that that world-class firm has outside the United States.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hewlett-Packard is at the forefront of research and development in this country, and my namesake there, John Taylor—

Mr. John M. Taylor: My namesake.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend can take the credit if he so wishes. Our namesake—to be scientifically accurate— has done a remarkable job in chairing our information technology foresight panel. There are many other examples: Motorola in Scotland has done research in this country that was not done originally in the United States; Nortel has done work here that is original and has not been done in Canada; and Ericsson and many others have done likewise—the list is too long for me to go through.
We are sending an appropriate signal to those foreign companies, in the Year of Engineering Success, when the excellence of what is going on in our industries as well as our universities needs to be signalled. In Science Engineering and Technology Week we are paying especial tribute to engineering; in this week we need skill and vision, and the courage to wear ties such as the one that I am sporting at the moment.

Inward Investment

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of inward investment into (a) France and (b) the United Kingdom since 1991. [19452]

Mr. Lang: According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1996" and the United Nations world investment report respectively, inward investment flows into the United Kingdom from 1991 to 1994 exceeded £33 billion while France received just under £32 billion. For 1995, inflows of investment into the United Kingdom were nearly £19 billion and into France nearly £13 billion.

Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State cites the statistics in a way that is helpful to him, but the truth is that the average amount of inward investment going to France in those years was £19 billion, and the average going to Britain £17 billion. Do not those statistics nail the lie, which the Secretary of State has used again twice today, that inward investment is discouraged by the social chapter and the minimum wage, which have obviously not succeeded in stopping inward investment going to France?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman obviously asked the question thinking that he knew the answer. I am sorry if he found my answer disappointing and unhelpful, but the fact is that the United Kingdom has been doing extremely well. I shall give him some more figures: between 1990 and 1994, the stock of inward investment into the United

Kingdom from outside Europe was 30 per cent; the comparable stock going into France was 10 per cent. I could cite many more figures.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the social chapter. That, of course, would skew the figures against Britain if we ever had to face the burden that it, or indeed the working time directive, would impose. I quote what the American chamber of commerce said to the Irish about that directive:
It is no exaggeration to say that the lack of flexibility in this Bill could represent the single most negative change in Ireland's flexibility to win US direct foreign investment that has happened in the past 20 years".
That is one of the reasons why we are so opposed to the working time directive that the Labour party wants to impose on us.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the flow of inward investment to the Scottish electronics industry has been a story of success? Does he further agree that the industry depends on the movement of components and products, and that that could be helped if fifth freedom rights were granted to Prestwick airport? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport?

Mr. Lang: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's opening points. I know how hard he has worked to help encourage inward investment to Scotland and to encourage the prospects for Prestwick airport in his constituency. I take careful note of his comments and will give the matter close attention from my DTI office after the general election.

Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the Government on their policies, which continue to attract inward investment from overseas. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we in Northern Ireland have benefited month on month from falling unemployment, as have other regions of the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance that, although Northern Ireland is a peripheral area, the excellence of our education system and the high achievement and excellent output of both Ulster university and Queen's university will be brought to the attention of potential investors so that they can take up highly qualified people?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of that point. Conservative Members believe in maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. No one knows better than I do the importance of the links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; my constituency has a substantial interest in the maintenance and development of transport links between Stranraer and his constituency.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the United Kingdom's success on inward investment depends partly on the image of our country, which is symbolised by our national flag, the Union Jack? Will he join me in deploring the conduct of the Scottish Liberal party in seeking to drop the use of the Union flag?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing could be more damaging to the prospects of maintaining our economic success than the internal constitutional upheaval that would flow from the proposals of the Labour and


Liberal parties and of the two nationalist parties. I was as horrified and appalled as my hon. Friend by the proposals of senior Liberal Members to abolish the Union Jack and the national anthem. That shows where the Liberal party stands. It believes in the break-up of the United Kingdom and turning this country into a set of regions run from Brussels.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State deny that the latest international figures show that France, with the social chapter, gets more inward investment than Britain, that British companies invest in the rest of Europe—with the social chapter—more than twice as much as European countries invest in Britain, that Ford is sourcing its new Escort in Spain and Germany, and that despite his earlier remarks, Toyota is considering a huge new investment in France that was described yesterday as a potential major coup? Does not the real damage to British investment and jobs come from the Government's divisions over Europe, their dishonesty and the danger of a fifth Tory term to the 3.5 million people whose jobs depend on Europe?

Mr. Lang: I welcome the right hon. Lady to our question and answer session, even if she is wrong on almost every point. I hope that she accepts my invitation to debate such matters during the coming general election campaign. We can then let the country judge who is right on trade and industry policies. On the United Kingdom's record in comparison with France, France claimed last year to have created 23,000 jobs from inward investment, the United Kingdom 62,000. In 1995, according to the United Nations, the United Kingdom received nearly 50 per cent. more inward investment than France, accounting for 9 per cent. of world stock compared with 6 per cent. for France. Between 1990 and 1994, the United Kingdom's stock of non-EU inward investment amounted to 30 per cent., compared with France's 10 per cent.

Information Technology

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote the wider use of information technology. [19454]

Mr. Ian Taylor: The information society initiative promotes the beneficial use of information and communications technologies across all areas of life, and includes the £35 million programme for business, and information technology for all, which aims to help all sections of the community get hands-on experience of the technology for the information society.

Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the keys to spreading information technology throughout our communities is to build up our telecommunications utilities network? Was he as surprised as I was yesterday that the shadow Chancellor threatened not only to take that investment money away from British Telecom as a utility but said that all companies which were regulated and licensed, but not necessarily privatised, without discrimination, would come under the windfall tax? We can see that the biggest threat to increasing information technology and telecommunications is a vote for Labour.

Mr. Taylor: Nothing surprises me about the way in which the shadow Chancellor tries to find money for his

spending pledges—even from people who thought that they had cuddled up to him and done deals with him. It seems absurd that, at the very moment when we have had a breakthrough in the World Trade Organisation which will liberalise world telecommunications—we in the United Kingdom led that change by liberalising early in the 1980s—the shadow Chancellor believes it right to place an imposition on BT and worsen its competitive position.

Mr. Hoon: It has been said that the difference between government and opposition is that Governments do things and Oppositions talk about doing things. Is it not clear from the Government's information technology policy, which seems to consist mostly of press releases, consultation documents and Green Papers—largely talking about doing things—just how much the Conservative Government are preparing for opposition?

Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that it is good to talk. The Government's programme for the information society initiative is the best managed anywhere in the world. We liberalised our telecommunications well before anyone else. We announced that we were liberalising even international telecommunications last summer. Before I gave away the licences at the end of December, British Telecom had reduced its international prices three times. Our success in telecommunications is often quoted as one of the top three reasons why inward investors want to come to Britain. Our content industries have been let loose to communicate with each other electronically and we have led the basis for the digital television revolution. That is not bad. There is more to do. I look forward to continuing these arguments and applying the policies after the election.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of promoting information technology is through the market? Does he agree that the privatisation of such companies as British Telecom and AEA Technology has brought outstanding success in promoting information technology? Does he agree that they have promoted that technology and brought it to the benefit of the ordinary consumer, for example by installing fibre-optics throughout the land?

Mr. Taylor: British Telecom is, this year alone, investing more than £2 billion in upgrading its infrastructure at the kerbside simply to meet the competitive challenge the cable industry has brought about in what is called the local loop. That is the market working. The Government do not have to instruct companies to do those things. We do not have to do cosy deals at party conferences. If the Government regulate and let the market act, the consumer benefits. Schools are being linked up to the networks by the force of the market. The cable industry and BT have offered fixed-price ISDN packages to schools to allow them to make more use of the super-highways. Conservative policy is delivering in every corner of the country every aspect of the information society. More and more people realise how important that is and why it is attached to the continuance of Conservative government.

Regional Support

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to review the level of his Department's financial support available to each region of the United Kingdom. [19455]

Mr. Greg Knight: Every element of the Department's expenditure is kept under regular review as part of the public expenditure survey process.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the experience of my constituency since 1979 encapsulate the problem for constituencies throughout the north of England? In the 1960s and 1970s, under Labour Governments and successful regional policies, 3,500 jobs were created in my constituency; in the 1980s and 1990s, under conservatism, 3,500 jobs were lost. Is it not clear that the Government have been involved in what can only be described as an act of industrial sabotage? May I ask the Minister not to give me a series of fabricated unemployment statistics in reply to my question?

Mr. Knight: Where has the hon. Gentleman been? We have had a severe world recession, and that is what caused difficulties, not only to his constituency, but to many others. That recession is now over and we are targeting the aid that is available in areas where the need is greatest. If the hon. Gentleman looks to Cumbria and the north-west region, he will see what is available: £30 million in European Union funding to help people get back to work; £20.7 million of regional selective assistance grants to help people get back to work; and, in Cumbria, £15 million of the single regeneration budget. That is what he should be welcoming. If there is any disappointment among his constituents about the recent past, it is because they have not had a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Mr. Booth: Regional policy is not a matter of spurious figures dictated by overmanning that has been cut out, or even by a world recession. Is not regional policy about ensuring that regions have freedom through lower taxation, lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower regulation—all policies that we are putting through?

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right but, in fairness, structural funds have a role to play and we want those funds to be targeted more effectively. On the broader picture, however, he is right to say that what matters to business and to the job creators is a stable macro-economic climate—low inflation and low taxes. That can be delivered only under a Conservative Government.

Dr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important determinants of the economic health of regions and national regions is the transportation infrastructure? Is he aware of the huge bills facing local authorities in Wales, Scotland and rural areas of England in particular as a result of their having to strengthen road bridges to accommodate the rise in maximum lorry weight from 38 to 40 tonnes? What are the Government going to do to get money from Europe to allow those hard-pressed authorities strengthen those bridges? After all, it is a European directive.

Mr. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is aware that discussions are currently taking place across Europe on

the administration of structural funds. Specific applications are primarily matters for monitoring committees and, as I understand it, the issue to which he refers is capable of being looked at under the structural funds regulations. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport and the local monitoring committees will wish to address the matter after 2 May.

Privatised Utilities

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter the structure of utility regulation. [19456]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government's immediate priority is to enable the electricity and gas regulators to continue to drive forward the opening of these markets to full competition in 1998, for the benefit of consumers.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the indicator of the regulators' success has been lower prices for consumers of gas and electricity and substantial infrastructure development and investment by the water industry? Would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party's so-called windfall tax? When water quality is particularly important to my constituents, who have experienced problems—fortunately now over—with Three Valleys Water, is not the election message to them that Labour's windfall tax would mean higher gas and electricity prices, but lower quality drinking water, less money for sewerage schemes and, what is more, no money for flood relief schemes? All those are vital to my constituents, and all would be put at risk by a so-called windfall tax.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct to lay out that litany of the dangers of electing Labour. Not only do we know nothing about the windfall tax; we do not know the basis on which the consumer would be charged. We have a policy called RPI minus x, which means less than inflation pricing policy. The Opposition Front Bench are divided on that; we have had one signal from Leeds, West and another from Pontypridd. Will Labour Members tell us about the windfall tax and their pricing policy? We are getting two messages at the moment—both bad.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister address his own responsibilities for a change and tell us why, if those companies are so efficient, they have not considered abolishing standing charges, and why so many of their elderly pensioner customers are deeply disturbed, not by the excellence of the service that they receive, but by its expense?

Mr. Taylor: Charging policy is a matter for the industry. The hon. Lady should listen to the answer. In any computation of a fair return on capital, which is a matter of interest to the shareholders, one must consider the historic cost of installing the equipment, for which standing charges are a form of rental. It is an equitable policy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Shareholders' interests always seem to come first.

Mr. Taylor: Shareholders have an interest, as do consumers. Consumers have benefited to the tune of 70 per cent. of efficiency gains; shareholders have benefited to the extent of 30 per cent. of efficiency gains.

Points of Order

Madam Speaker: Point of order— Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a loud point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Short, we hope."] Following the Prime Minister's answer yesterday to the question about the Commissioner for Standards, and knowing that you have said from the Chair in this Parliament that you were very keen that all Members' interests and reputations and that of the House in general be protected, may I ask your advice as to whether there is any way in which, by your direct or indirect authority, if the Commissioner for Standards indicates that he can complete his report before Parliament is dissolved, the House, in the proper way, can have the opportunity to consider it; and, more important, whether there is any way in which the interests of Members, whether or not they are featured in the report, can be protected?

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Madam Speaker: I think this is a similar point of order.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—I am sorry that I have not been able to give you notice—I have been giving consideration to the point that has just been raised, on this basis. The prorogation of Parliament is entirely for the Crown and the Prime Minister, and does not relate in any way to your responsibilities; but the House continues to sit, as a House of Parliament, until 8 April.
During that period, Sir Gordon Downey, along with the Clerk of the House and the Editor of Hansard, remains an Officer of the House, and you, I put it to you, have the authority to instruct an Officer of the House to make available information that he has gathered at the request of the House, even though the House is prorogued and not able to meet.
Madam Speaker, you did make a great statement, in my opinion, about the standing of Parliament and the relationship of this matter to the standing of Parliament in the public mind. As we approach an election, that question will undoubtedly be a factor in the public mind, so I would ask you to consider very carefully whether you do have the authority, as I believe you may have and do have—and would be ready to exercise that authority—to allow the wishes of this Parliament to be fulfilled: namely, that Sir Gordon Downey's intentions be acted on, inasmuch as his report be published even though the House and the Committee were not able to consider it.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate?

Mr. Jenkin: It does, Madam Speaker. I put it to you, contrary to the view that has just been expressed, that we are dealing here with the livelihoods of hon. Members. What we want is a dispassionate and fair appraisal of the facts of the case. Can that really be achieved by the Opposition parties forcing the issue now for their own political purposes?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It will be within your recollection

that, during business questions and at other times, some very specific, rather narrow questions have been asked, particularly about Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed. Does the Committee, or do you, have the power to order the publication of an interim report on those narrow questions, as opposed to the wider issue that may be absorbing most of the time and energies of the Committee? Are you entitled to require the publication of interim reports?

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does it relate?

Mr. Shaw: It relates indirectly—

Madam Speaker: No.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask all hon. Members to resume their seats. I am not asking for points of order on this matter, but if Members have genuine points of order for me, I want to hear them. I do not want to hear any false ones; this is a very serious matter. I am almost ready now to respond, but I will hear any further genuine points of order that hon. Members may have.

Mr. Shaw: My point of order, Madam Speaker, relates to the Standards and Privileges Committee and to its work on this report. The real issue is that that report is holding up other reports on at least three Labour Members. There are allegations that filibustering has been going on during preparation of the report in question, so that the reports on the three Labour Members cannot be considered.
As I understand it, new complaints cannot be considered by the Committee, but on today's Order Paper there is an early-day motion signed by 47 Labour Members who are benefiting to the tune of £1 million in sponsorship and support from the Co-operative Movement. I should like to refer that to the Standards and Privileges Committee, but I do not believe I can, because the Committee is no longer scheduled to meet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with that point of order immediately. If the hon. Gentleman has any such complaints they should go to the Commissioner for Standards—right away.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I cannot go on with these points of order, as I am now ready to respond. Does anyone have a new point of order? I see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) trying to catch my eye; he is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) are a fabrication.

Madam Speaker: I have already dealt with those comments. If the hon. Member for Dover has any evidence, he knows how to proceed.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. On 14 October last year,


you made a statement to the House in which you called these allegations "very serious", and said that they had undoubtedly worried the public as well as the House itself. You went on:
I would not be doing my duty as Speaker if I allowed this situation to pass without saying that I believe very strongly indeed that these matters must be resolved as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 463.]
I put it to you that the issue does not simply concern the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who incidentally has stated that he wants the report to be published as quickly as possible. The House has been affected by continual allegations of sleaze, and it is important for the reputation of the House, not for the benefit of any single Member, that, before Parliament comes to an end, the report should be duly published. Are we to go into a general election campaign with this matter hanging over us?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now ready to respond to these points of order; I shall take others later.
The House itself established the Standards and Privileges Committee, and required it to undertake an inquiry into the allegations of Mr. Al-Fayed. Only the Committee can be the judge of whether it can produce a report on those matters. Hon. Members may regret that it has been unable to do so, but I know that it is not for want of trying, and I pay my own tribute to the Commissioner for Standards, the Chairman and members of that Committee for the hard work they have put into their consideration of this and other matters.
As to the suggestion that the Committee should continue its work after prorogation, I have to tell the House that, constitutionally, it is simply not possible. Although the Committee has the power to sit during a normal recess, the effect of prorogation is to terminate all the current business of Parliament, including the work of Committees. I refer hon. Members to page 60 of "Erskine May", which says:
The effect of a prorogation is at once to terminate all the current business of Parliament.
There is nothing that I can do as Speaker to alter that.
In answer to a direct question, I have no authority, either, to instruct the Commissioner to publish his report. That report must be given to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I was wondering whether you could give me guidance on whether you have received any messages from Ministers at the Department of Health about the possibility of holding an urgent debate on the dire situation at Edgware general hospital, given that the position there is rendered more perilous by the delays of Barnet hospital's new developments and the problems at Northwick Park hospital. As you know, I have been trying to raise the matter in the past few days in some form, including an Adjournment debate. I should be grateful for your guidance.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order with me twice today. I have not been informed that a Minister seeks to make a statement on the matter.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I seek your ruling, Madam Speaker. It is not a matter for the Commissioner for Standards. Is it not correct that, if hon. Members table an early-day motion, they should declare their interest? Having been sitting here, I have been unable to check with the hon. Members concerned, but I believe that the early-day motion was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), who has interests with the Co-operative Movement. Early-day motion 682 calls for the Government to protect the Co-operative Movement. None of the Labour Members who tabled it, most of whom have a direct interest with the Co-operative Movement, have declared their interest on the Order Paper.

Madam Speaker: It is normal to put an "R" at the side of an early-day motion and, if there are interests to declare, those should be declared.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the earlier point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not take further points of order once I have given a ruling, and I have made a clear ruling, which was very carefully worded.

Mr. Faulds: This is another aspect, Madam Speaker. Would you inquire whether it is at all feasible for the House of Commons itself to decide to postpone prorogation?

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Colleagues have referred to the Register of Members' Interests and standards, and have pointed out that, in declaring Members' interests, we should name those who have provided funds for us. A number of hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, stated that they had a blind trust in which they were receiving money—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with all those matters—[Interruption.] No, I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to go on. If he has anything to complain about, it should go through our procedures to the Commissioner for Standards.

BILL PRESENTED

ABOLITION OF PHARMACEUTICAL MONOPOLIES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. William Cash presented a Bill to remedy an ambiguity in the law relating to the dispensing of medicines in rural areas and to abolish the monopoly for the dispensing of medicines within one mile of any pharmacy in rural areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 143].

Age Discrimination

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination.
The Bill would make it an offence to discriminate against adults on the ground of age in matters of employment, promotion, redundancy and access to public facilities, including training and education, and in matters of health care and medical services.
I am by temperament and conviction a deregulator, and I am proud to be vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench deregulation committee. I take it as axiomatic that any hon. Member introducing any legislative proposal bears a substantial burden of proof that the only effective way of addressing an ill and bringing about a necessary improvement is by increasing the corpus of legislation on our statute book. I fear that, in this instance, that test is met. It seems clear that legislation is necessary to deal with the problems we face.
Hon. Members may have noticed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday an advertisement placed by the Association of Retired and Persons Over 50 which set out some interesting facts resulting from a survey by the Institute of Management. That survey showed that 60 per cent. of job advertisements set some age limits beyond which candidates would not be considered, and that one third of all employers have a policy of not hiring people aged more than 45, whatever their experience or qualifications may be, and without examining the individual case.
It is not difficult to conceive of the enormous heartbreak and the destruction of people's hopes and aspirations that such discrimination must inevitably bring about. However, it is a public matter that should concern us all, not just those of us who know, are related to or have as constituents the many direct victims of such discrimination.
It is extremely bad for society and the economy for us to deprive ourselves of the talents and energies of so many people, the wealth and output that might be created by allowing them to practise their trades and professions, and the tax revenue that would be generated if they were in the labour market.
As recently as 1972, some 80 per cent. of men between the ages of 60 and 64 were in employment. Now that figure is down to 50 per cent. No doubt many of those men have voluntarily retired and are happy to be doing little or engaging in non-remunerated activities. It must be in the public interest, however, to encourage people in their 50s, 60s and 70s, and who are willing and able to go back to work, to do so. It is in the interests of us all that they should do that. It must therefore be in our interest to remove artificial obstructions to their re-entering the labour market.
Another aspect of my Bill concerns an even more significant and urgent issue—discrimination on age grounds in the health service. That is entirely contrary to the principles set out in the Act—and the 1944 White Paper produced by the coalition Government—on which the NHS was founded in 1948. It is also entirely contrary to explicit Government policy. Only the other day,

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a ringing declaration that age discrimination would be contrary to every principle of Government policy in the health service.
Nevertheless, I fear that such discrimination occurs. I should like to read an extract from an article in the British Medical Journal last week by Professor Grimley Evans, professor of clinical gerontology at the Radcliffe infirmary and the Oxford medical school. He writes:
Older people are discriminated against in the NHS. This is best documented in sub-standard treatment of acute myocardial infarction and other forms of heart disease, where it tends to premature deaths and unnecessary disability. The care for older people with cancer is also poorer than that provided for younger patients. Age discrimination in the NHS occurs despite explicit statements from the Government that withholding treatment on the basis of age is not acceptable. Ageism is mostly instigated by clinicians, but condoned by some managers.
Age Concern has brought together considerable documentation on anecdotal cases demonstrating that this is no theoretical problem. I am sure that only a small minority of clinicians or national health service managers would stoop to the practice that I have described, but the practice exists. I believe that there is no other way of uprooting it than by legislating to do so.
There has been a slightly surprising development over the past few days. One would suppose that such a nefarious form of discrimination would be practised covertly, shamefully and in silence by those who engage in it. Indeed, that has generally been the case. In yesterday's Daily Mail, however, which some Members may have read, there appeared an article written by a Mr. Williams, who is not a doctor but apparently a health economist. Mr. Williams attempted to justify discrimination in health matters on the ground of age. That is a sinister development.
I believe that any right hon. or hon. Member who reads the article by Mr. Williams will agree with me that only one of two conclusions can be drawn. Either it is involuntarily muddled in its thinking or it is deliberately disingenuous. I shall give one example. Mr. Williams makes fun of the idea of providing a hip replacement for a 90-year-old with a terminal cancer. No responsible doctor would dream of imposing the gratuitous trauma of an orthopaedic operation on any terminal patient of any age. Mr. Williams makes my point. Clinical decisions should be made on clinical grounds. They should be made in the light of the specific physiological condition of the individual patient.
If the protections of the National Health Service Act, repeated Government statements and the Hippocratic oath—I have always believed that that oath places an absolute responsibility on all doctors to have prime regard to the interests of their individual patients and not to be guided by extraneous considerations—are not enough to eliminate the practice of age discrimination, we clearly need some explicit change to the law.
A generation ago, the House passed sex discrimination and race discrimination legislation, which has had widespread acceptance. The great effect of those measures was to create a change in attitude, a change in behaviour patterns and a change in culture. These pieces of legislation have been enormously beneficial to those groups which might otherwise have been subject to entirely invidious discrimination. It is time that the


sections of our population of older ages—we all hope to join their ranks in due time—should be equally protected from unjustified discrimination.
I commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Batiste, Mr. Forman, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Sir David Hunt, Mr. Mans, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Temple-Morris, Mr. Waller and Mr. Yeo.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 March, and to be printed [Bill 144].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall have effect—

(1) At the sittings this day and tomorrow the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords have been received.

(2) At this day's sitting, in respect of the motion relating to ministerial accountability the Speaker shall forthwith put the questions on the motion and on any amendment which may have been selected and moved; and the questions may be decided, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.

(3) At this day's sitting—

(a) the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock, put the question on any motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown relating to estimates, and

(b) any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.

(4) At the sitting tomorrow, in respect of any motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown which relates to tax simplification or a report from a Select Committee, the Speaker shall forthwith put the questions on the motion and on any amendment which may have been selected and moved.

(5) If any Lords Amendment to the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill is received at the sitting this day or tomorrow—

(a) it shall be considered forthwith,

(b) the Speaker shall forthwith put the question on any motion which may then be made relating to it, and

(c) the question may be decided, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.

(6) Notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. 11 and 11A (Fridays) and the Order of 30th October 1996, the House shall sit on Friday 21st March, at Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day — Police Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Madam Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have to tell the House that, in addition to the amendments that I selected earlier today, I have received three manuscript amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Those have been distributed. I have selected the first of those amendments, which seeks to leave out lines 27 and 28 on page 56 of the Bill. The amendment will, of course, be taken in its appropriate place, after amendment No. 4.

Clause 2

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE NCIS SERVICE AUTHORITY AND NCIS

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
'and
(e) the system of justice operating in any country with which it is proposed to offer intelligence or support under subsection (3)(d), and the extent to which it can be assumed that such intelligence or support will be used in accordance with conditions similar to those to which NCIS is subject.'.
The amendment refers to a clause that I have strongly supported—I was among a number of people who argued that it should be introduced. The clause puts the national criminal intelligence service and the national crime squad on a statutory footing, and it sets out the powers and responsibilities of NCIS.
The amendment was tabled because the provisions on co-operating with the intelligence and security services and police forces of other countries are extremely broadly described on the face of the Bill. The Bill refers to NCIS dealing with
any other person engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the NCIS Service Authority, NCIS, a police authority, a police force, the NCS Service Authority or the National Crime Squad. I am strongly in support of international co-operation between law enforcement organisations, which is absolutely essential in the fight against international drug trafficking. Indeed, our drug liaison officers who operate, for example, in Holland, work closely with their counterparts in other countries. When they do, however, in Holland or other countries—even in very friendly countries and countries with a similar background—they have to be very careful about how they exchange intelligence, for a number of reasons. That is even more the case, given some of the regimes to which one might imagine the power would extend.
The wording could open the door to co-operation with the most oppressive regimes in the world—those with the most authoritarian and uncontrolled police forces, or with forces that are subject to the control of some element in a deeply divided form of government. It could open the way to intelligence being shared with very insecure


organisations, whose acquisition of the knowledge from that intelligence could damage our own security and the sources from which the intelligence had come. It could also lead to threats to individuals who are in this country but in whom other Governments have an interest, perhaps because they are fugitives from the politics of that country and might have vulnerable families living there.
All those considerations are familiar to the security organisations, because they have to make judgments about those matters in their existing work and co-operation, but I was worried to find on the face of the Bill a power so broad without any reference to NCIS having an obligation to have regard to international human rights obligations; to the security of the information that it might pass on; or to any other relevant factors.
The amendment follows on from a broader amendment tabled in Committee, but it is much narrower and requires reference to the system of justice in operation
and the extent to which it can be assumed that such intelligence or support will be used in accordance with conditions similar to those to which NCIS is subject.
There are a number of international arrangements under which that provision can be met. The Interpol constitution refers to keeping
within the spirit of the universal declaration of human rights.
Article 3 of the constitution forbids intervention in the affairs of a member country of a
political, military, religious or racial character.
There are other provisions in the Europol arrangements that may help.
It is important that the Minister takes the opportunity to clarify and put on record how we shall ensure that we do not share intelligence in a way that could compromise our security and which would damage the human rights of individuals; that we do not share intelligence with regimes whose use of that intelligence would be oppressive; and that we have regard to all the wider human rights obligations to which I referred. I hope that the Minister will be able to do that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The amendment would require the NCIS service authority to have regard to the systems of justice in any country with which NCIS may exchange intelligence and provide support. The service authority would also be required to consider how that intelligence might be used, and to judge that against the controls in place for NCIS.
Those are operational matters, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the service authority to undertake such functions. However, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's concern is to ensure that intelligence exchange between NCIS and non-UK law enforcement agencies is subject to appropriate controls. I assure him that that is already the case.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I wrote to members of the Standing Committee on 10 March setting out the various controls that already exist for the exchange of information by NCIS. That letter is in the Library.
I stress that most exchanges of information between law enforcement agencies are through Interpol. The Interpol constitution states that its aims are to
promote and facilitate the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and within the spirit of the universal declaration of human rights.
In addition, the constitution forbids any intervention in the affairs of a member country of a
political, military, religious or racial character.
I also referred in my letter to the exchange of intelligence between NCIS and the countries that host NCIS and Customs and Excise liaison officers. Any such exchanges are in accordance with Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidance on the individual country, and at the discretion of individual liaison officers with detailed knowledge of the country involved. Furthermore, any requests received direct from individual law enforcement agencies that give cause for concern are checked as far as is practicable before a response is given. Some requests have been refused, and I outlined some examples in my letter to the Standing Committee.
I cannot go into specific details for operational reasons, but, for example, NCIS has refused to exchange information about individuals who have claimed political asylum. Some countries can prosecute individuals for committing an offence in another country, and allegedly bringing discredit to their sovereign country. NCIS does not pass on information in such circumstances, nor does it pass on information when that may lead to a United Kingdom national facing capital punishment.
I cannot agree to the amendment, because it would require the service authority to become involved, as I said, in operational matters, and it would blur the lines of responsibility between the service authority and the director general. That said, I do of course agree about the need for exchange of information to be subject to some control. However, as I said, that is already the case in NCIS, and it will continue to be so.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister expect the service authority to discuss with the director general the principles on which it deals with requests for information, so that the director general can say what guidelines he is working to, just as Home Office Ministers discuss with security authorities, without going into operational detail, the basis on which they deal with such requests?

Mr. Kirkhope: There is no reason why such discussions should not take place, and I expect them to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman inferred, the service authority is not expected to be involved in operational matters and operational control.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Minister made it clear that NCIS will make decisions on operational matters. Advice on the systems of law in other countries would come from the Foreign Office and from the Home Secretary, as part of his responsibilities under the Bill. Judgments about the quality of justice in other countries should surely not be left to the operational


authority. Departments of State have the capacity to make such judgments through their international knowledge and contacts.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thought that I had made it clear how responsibility would be divided. The Departments concerned would certainly be responsible for intelligence and assessment of the situation.
I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman to some extent, and that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Michael: Everyone would want the system of justice operating in any country engaged in relations and activities involving NCIS to be one in which people in this country could be confident. My concern about the amendment is that it seems to place an obligation on NCIS to make judgments about such matters. The Minister's reply to me seemed to confirm a different view: that such judgments must be made by Government rather than by an agency. The agency will be responsible for operational decision making, but to ask a police authority—a service authority—to make decisions about the criminal justice systems of other countries is hardly something with which we would be happy if it operated in reverse.
I think that we all agree with the sentiment that we should be certain that the operations of NCIS involve co-operation, joint activities and support where there are systems of justice in which we can have confidence, and that, where there are reservations, great care should be exercised. To place a responsibility for making such judgments on the service authority would, however, constitute an abrogation of the responsibility of Government. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I think that the effect of his amendment would be far removed from the responsibility that he sought to include in the Bill.

Mr. Beith: I think that we have made progress in this short debate.
As I see it, the head of NCIS—the chief constable— will need to have regard to advice from various directions before deciding how to use his powers under this clause, and, indeed, whether to use them at all to offer intelligence or support or to exchange intelligence. He will need to have regard to Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidance about the situation in the countries concerned, and, perhaps, to the Home Secretary's view of relevant matters. He must have regard to international obligations involving human rights, including treaties to which we are a signatory. He will also need to discuss the general framework within which he works with the service authority. It would be wrong for that authority to have no knowledge of such matters, because it does some of the job that the Home Secretary does in dealing with the comparable position of the Security Service. It is natural that the service authority should be involved in discussing the broad guidelines on the basis of which he works.
Given what the Minister has now helpfully put on record, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

AID BY AND FOR NCIS

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 11, line 34, after 'subsection (1)' insert 'or (2)'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 36, after 'direct' insert

'the Director General of NCIS,'.

No. 9, in page 11, line 38, after 'Constabulary' insert 'or'.

No. 10, in page 11, line 39, leave out

or the Director General of NCIS'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 95

AUTHORISATIONS: FORM AND DURATION ETC.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 38, leave out lines 26 to 28.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 97

AUTHORISATIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 39, line 31, after 'applies' insert 'to the authorisation'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 40, line 9, at end insert—
'"urgency" means circumstances in which it is not reasonably practicable to apply for an authorisation because to do so would cause such delay as would be likely seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation.'.
We now come to what has been the most publicly controversial part of the Bill—the part that deals with intrusive surveillance, or bugging.
It has been a long and complex story. From the start, Liberal Democrats have believed that there should be a prior authority for intrusive surveillance in places that people might legitimately regard as private, such as private houses or hotel rooms. That does not apply to lock-up garages or cars being tracked: those are dealt with in another part of the Bill. We felt that that authority should come from a judge, and proposed that it should come from a circuit judge.
To cut a long story short, in another place, not only our amendment, but, thanks to a change of heart by the Labour party—which had initially been satisfied with a post hoc authority—another amendment was carried, which gave the job to a commissioner or one of a body of commissioners who held or had held high judicial office—a judge or former judge, but acting through a body of commissioners. I do not want to go back over that ground. We have our own preference as between the sorts of prior judicial authority, but, at least at this stage of the Bill, an application must be made to a judge who is a commissioner, to gain authority to undertake the intrusive surveillance to which I referred.

Mr. Michael: In view of the debates on the issue, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that the option that he preferred—that of an application to a circuit judge— was a weaker way of protecting civil liberties than the prior application to a commissioner, which was the Labour party's proposal?

Mr. Beith: No. The hon. Gentleman's original position and that of the Labour party—that no prior authority was


required—was as weak as dishwater. It was disgraceful that the Labour party should have contemplated the Bill going on to the statute book in that form. I welcome its conversion—
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".

Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly restrain his capacity for exaggeration, which seems to have been brought on by the imminence of an election? The Labour party welcomes the commissioner operation, because we believe that it is the right way of achieving a proper balance in relation to authority for surveillance and the protection of civil liberties. We said from the beginning that we felt that there should be scrutiny and a strengthening of the protection in the legislation as it passed through both Houses. We have fulfilled our part with honour and distinction.

Mr. Beith: I am tempted to say, "Come on. The other one's got bells on it." The hon. Gentleman must consider what his colleague the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said during the Bill's earlier stages, when he was satisfied that we did not need a system of prior authorisation. There has been agreement throughout that a body that reviewed the whole process—the commissioners—would be an element in the system. The change has been that that body has also been entrusted with giving prior approval to intrusive surveillance, a change that was not originally supported by the Labour party and that it supported later. I have welcomed that, and the hon. Gentleman should accept those kind words with good grace, but it took quite an effort.
I am glad to say that many Labour Members voted with us in favour of our circuit judge amendment, as they did on other aspects of this Bill and the Crime (Sentences) Bill, even when advised not to do so by Labour Front Benchers. Thankfully, some people in that party in another place are strongly committed to civil liberties.
We are dealing now with the circumstances in which prior approval would have to be given by the commissioners. The crux of the issue is urgency; that is what the amendment is about. There is a fear that, because, in urgent cases, prior authority or approval will not be necessary—it will be sufficient to notify the commissioner at the time or as soon as possible thereafter of the intrusive surveillance operation—that creates too wide and open a measure in the Bill. I shall not go as far as the Home Secretary, who said about another aspect of another Bill that it was driving a coach and horses through it, but there is a potentially wide loophole that might be too extensively used. In Committee and again today, I seek to define "urgency" more clearly.
In discussions, we have refined the position between the Government and ourselves. I recognise that, so far as they have been expressed to me, certainly in private, the Government's intentions seem to be what I would want them to be—that those urgent provisions should be used only in circumstances where it was not reasonably practicable to apply for an authorisation, because to do so would cause such delay as seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation. Unless there is some such understanding, there is a slight danger that people working in that sphere will say, "All operations are urgent. In the nature of things, when your opportunity comes, you have to act quickly."
For the comparable activities of the Security Service, it is not felt necessary to have any urgent provisions at all. The same is true of police applications to tap telephones. What happens? The Home Secretary must be consulted and give his authorisation, his warrant. If the Home Secretary has to be got out of bed for the purpose, that is what happens. If he has to be tracked down on his holidays for the purpose, that is what happens. If he is out of the country, another Secretary of State is got out of bed—or found, wherever he may be.
That procedure is efficient enough to work rapidly in cases of urgency. We must also remember that no such action takes place without a formalised procedure within the police force. The chief constable is involved. Papers are brought to him, and the process takes some time. It is not a case of someone making a snap decision on the spot, after which something happens immediately.
4.15 pm
In any event, because of the nature of what is being done, such arrangements take a bit of preparation and planning. One cannot decide on such a course of action on the spur of the moment. It would be wrong to exaggerate the number of cases in which special urgency procedures are used.
The provision is there now and our job, as we revise the Bill on Report, is to ensure that it is adequate. I hope that the Minister will tell us that urgency really means urgency, and that the provision will not be used lightly. If possible, the code of practice could be improved to stipulate that.
What is said in the House will help to reinforce the fact that the procedures should not be used unless it is not possible to go through the formal procedures, because to do so would prevent the police from doing the important job that they have in hand.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I support the amendment. Perhaps the most grievous thing about the Bill—it is at the heart of the reason why I oppose it root, branch and in every way that I can—is the concept of moving from traditional, constitutional and historical values.
No one should enter our homes without the authority of a warrant, and such a warrant should not be self-issuing. The extraordinary thing about the Bill is that although we have insisted that warrants be granted to the security and intelligence services only through the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary, who are accountable on the Floor of the House, the Home Office now countenances the idea that chief constables or their deputies should be able to authorise themselves in any circumstances.
It was extraordinary to see the House of Lords reissue the language of this country, for this is a land of liberty. We believe in things, and one of the most important of those things is that a warrant must be issued to permit entry into people's homes.
Under the revised provisions, the Home Secretary still countenances the idea that circumstances could exist—he described them as extraordinary—in which it would be necessary to allow a police officer to be in effect self-warranting. That is wholly inappropriate.
Why does our language describe us as a land of liberty? Why have we had all those protections? Why have many people come here as refugees to escape what has been


happening abroad? Because we were people attentive to due process of law. That is why I support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Why, even in extraordinary circumstances, should a chief constable be able to authorise the bugging and burgling of premises? As we were reminded by the speeches made in another place, that is unlawful, although it has been practised by the Home Office and by police forces for many years.
People will understand our sensitivity, especially in the west midlands, where it was necessary to disband our serious crime squad. Policemen themselves had come to conclusions about free citizens and ensured that they were brought to trial and found guilty. Subsequently the convictions had to be overturned, because the police had invented evidence or circumstances.
That is the danger with self-authorisation. People can become so intent on the cause that they are pursuing, the crime that they "know" someone else has committed, that they search out and find evidence, whether it is there or not. Now, for reasons of administrative convenience, the Home Office has introduced a measure that contradicts a fundamental principle—that the agencies of the Executive should not themselves be able to do these things. On Second Reading, I asked the shadow Home Secretary what the exceptional circumstances were. I noticed that, in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
I can give no better example than the one that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) provided on Second Reading. He mentioned a kidnapping during which the police follow a vehicle to the place where the kidnap victim is being held but do not know the location until moments before the kidnappers arrive. I agreed with the hon. Member that it would be absurd to expect the police to seek the prior approval of a commissioner in such a case."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 March 1997; c. 134.]
Remember—my right hon. Friend said:
I can give no better example".
I have always understood that kidnapping is a crime, so the police are in pursuit of someone in the commission of a crime. The law of the land is on their side as they reach and pluck out those criminals. Why is it therefore necessary to construct an extraordinary warrant for the few seconds in which my right hon. Friend says that the police may have to be able to bug and burgle premises, of which they were not aware until a few seconds before? If one disentangles the logic of the proposal, it does not stand up.
I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is frowning, but he will be aware of the indignation of many of us in the House at the Labour party, which stood aside on this matter until the House of Lords brought it to book. It was prepared to accept the wholesale non-use of warrants to achieve those administrative purposes for the police.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not make up the position of the Labour party, which I shall explain in due course. Could he explain what he has just said, as my frown was one of puzzlement? In the circumstances that he has just described, what would be the authority for the intrusion on to property to bug, with which he apparently has no problem?

Mr. Shepherd: I am referring to a kidnap in progress, when, for some reason, the police are required

to bug or burgle premises. If one tests the proposition, one must ask why any of these provisions are necessary. The police know their duty, and are supported by the law and by the public. There is no need to bug premises. I am trying to suggest that we have constructed the most artificial and curious circumstances in which it is necessary for the police to intervene. I am trying to reiterate a principle that is profound to the nature of our constitution—that no authority, or part of the civil authority of the Executive, may of itself issue warrants to reach into our homes during the investigation of what amounts to 0.00001 per cent. of all possible cases at issue. Yet this law will apply to all 55 million people in the United Kingdom.
In pursuit of administrative convenience, we are prepared to throw away the reason why this was a land of liberty. I just wish that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth could give his attention to reading the original Hansard debates from the House of Lords.

Mr. Michael: Come on.

Mr. Shepherd: There is no point in trying to brush this aside, because it is a matter of indignation for some of us.

Mr. Michael: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be absurd. Of course I have read the Hansard reports from the House of Lords—they were extremely important debates. I was involved in debating those issues long before they reached the House of Lords, because of the importance of balancing the authorisation of surveillance to protect the public with civil liberties. Let the hon. Gentleman make his point without trying to misrepresent the position of others.

Mr. Shepherd: The conclusion that the hon. Gentleman came to was that we did not need warrants. That was the position put and argued in the House of Lords, so he should not get indignant with me about reading the report of the House of Lords debate, because it is on the record. We know full well where the hon. Gentleman started from. The House of Lords converted him because of the power of the arguments. The Labour party changed its position and that is fine—it is a triumph for the debating process in both Houses, and I salute that with pride.
We must return to the extraordinary circumstances elicited by the Home Office, which stated that it was trying to make lawful that which was unlawful and which had been a practice—through its memoranda or guidance notes—in our system of which I, through ignorance, was unaware. I suspect that large numbers of other people were unaware. Do we know whether our house is being burgled or bugged? Usually, we do not.
My nightmare is that a burglary or bugging will take place at the home of an elderly couple who are leaving from Birmingham airport and who find that they have forgotten their passports. They might come back and be confronted with intruders in their house. I can see circumstances arising from this issue that would give rise to public concern about the functions and actions of the police.
We have made it necessary for the security and intelligence services to effect such activities, but with a warrant in all circumstances. We had some great debates in the House on that subject. Yet the police, in a tiny fraction of cases, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said
I can give no better example".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 March 1997; c. 134.]
will not be required to have such a warrant.
I am terribly worried about that matter and I cannot support the Bill on that basis. We trust our police and we want to maintain such a relationship with them, but they must never be the instrument of a central authority. Secondly, our constitution is about checks and balances. We have all too few of them and they are precious. Almost the last check and balance is the courts themselves, which now engage in judicial review on a scale unimaginable a generation ago. Why? Because they are almost the only check and balance that we have left. We do not perform the task well enough.
To produce such profound legislation under the avalanche of a general election means that the reflection and consideration necessary to such an important principle have not been given in this Chamber or this House, so I support the amendment.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am particularly concerned about this aspect of the Bill, especially as I have had conflicting answers from the Home Secretary about cordless telephones and who is responsible for giving the police or any other authority permission to tap such telephones. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told me that he held no central information on the number of times that he had given permission for cordless telephones to be tapped. He then suggested that they were covered by the Interception of Telecommunications Act 1985.
In Committee, I understand that the Minister gave conflicting answers. I hope that he will clarify to our satisfaction whether cordless telephones are covered by the 1985 Act, who gives authorisation for the tapping of those telephones and who holds records of the number of times that authorisations are given. That is an important matter. A large number of people now own cordless telephones, and they will all be concerned about this grey area in the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I hope that, in my usual way, I can assist the House and pour some oil on troubled waters this afternoon. First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), there is no doubt about the matter, and there was no conflicting view in Committee. It is clear. Any organ of the state or anyone wanting to intercept any telephone communication, whether on a land line or a mobile phone—cordless telephones as she describes them—must have an intercept warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That requires the authorisation of the Home Secretary and has done so since IOCA was passed.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, but the matter is not relevant to the amendment, and I do not want to stray too far from the terms of the debate.

Mrs. Clwyd: Surveillance is part of the debate. What the Minister says conflicts with what the Home Secretary said. If he can assure us that the matter is dealt with in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, why did the Home Secretary tell us that the information was not held centrally and that it was a matter for police authorities? Surely, if he has to give his permission, he must know on how many occasions he has been asked for it.

Mr. Maclean: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. It is quite clear that the Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies to the interception of telecommunications or telephone calls, whether on mobile phones or on land lines. The hon. Lady was confusing two issues. In her original question, she was confusing information on interception of communications and the quite distinct and totally different matter of whether the police can approach a telephone operator and ask for information that may be held at the exchange or on computer records about what phone calls were made from certain phones, whether mobile or land line.

Mr. Michael: I believe that the Minister is trying to help the House, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has been trying to tease out the explanation of the curious lack of reply from the Home Secretary on the interception of mobile phone calls. Is the Minister saying that interceptions of mobile phone calls would be included in the overall number of interceptions and cannot be distinguished, or that they are not recorded? Surely my hon. Friend's point is right: if the Home Secretary has to authorise such interceptions, they would appear in the numbers somewhere, although perhaps not in a separate category.

Mr. Maclean: I do not know whether they are separated out for statistical purposes. I can give the House the principal assurance that there is no difference in law and no avoidance of IOCA simply because the intercept relates to a mobile telephone call. At some point or other, mobile phones are plugged into the public telephone network, and if any state agency or police authority wants to intercept a public telephone, whether it is made exclusively on land lines, or between mobiles and land lines, or in any other combination, the Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies. That is exactly what I said in Committee, and I believe that that is the correct position.
I take extremely seriously the points that have been made. They were debated seriously in Committee. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed his concern in Committee regarding the cases in which surveillance operations in the sensitive categories may go ahead without the prior approval of the commissioner.
I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has had a noble record, since long before I came to the House, of defending absolutely the privacy and the rights of individuals. At times, the Government may have considered his interventions slightly awkward to handle, but I none the less welcome his resolute defence of those rights, and it is important that hon. Members make


those points. I do not say that he is misguided today: perhaps I have not made clear to him all the safeguards that already exist in the Bill.
We are all agreed that the procedure should be used only in cases of genuine urgency, and I believe that that point is satisfactorily covered in the Bill as drafted. I do not believe that any further definition along the lines of the amendment is necessary. The amendment would not get round my hon. Friend's main point of principle. Even if I were to accept the amendment, it would not address his worries of principle. I also believe that those worries are unnecessary.
The Bill already requires that, where an authorising officer uses the urgent procedure in cases that require prior approval, he must, when notifying the commissioner, give his reasons for believing that the case was urgent. That is the crucial point. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said repeatedly that the procedure is self-authorising, and that organs of the state should not use a self-authorising procedure. I agree entirely; this is not a self-authorising procedure that no one can challenge or examine. It is not the case that chief constables can make a decision that is never re-examined.
We have built it into the Bill that, in cases where a chief officer, or those designated, believe that something is genuinely urgent, they can use the procedure. However, they must then notify the commissioner, who will be able to quash an authorisation immediately if he is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the case was urgent. I draw that to his attention because I know that he has read the Bill and the Committee proceedings.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The amended Bill.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has read the amended Bill in detail. I ask him to look at the procedure that we now have: the authorisation by the chief officer; the review by the commissioner to check whether the chief officer's decision was reasonable; the appellate procedure built in for the chief commissioner. In all fairness, there is no way in which my hon. Friend could describe this as an organ of the state having a self-authorising procedure.

Mr. Shepherd: That the judgment may be reviewed subsequently does not alter the fact that the initial phase is self-authorising.

Mr. Maclean: Of course the initial phase is self-authorising, but then there are the procedures involving the commissioner and, on appeal, the chief commissioner. There is another safeguard. As my hon. Friend knows, chief constables will not abuse the procedures, because of the safeguards that are built in. I am not asking the House to trust me and to trust all the chief constables. We are not simply leaving it to that. The system will not be abused because of the procedures built in—the report that the chief commissioner will make to the Prime Minister and the safeguards that are in the Bill. The chief commissioner will consider in his annual report how the urgency procedure has been used. He will not be backward in coming forward if he believes that there has been misuse of the genuine urgency procedure.
We have had a short but crucial debate. I reiterate that I do not believe that it is necessary to define "urgency" in the Bill. I have listened carefully to the points that were

made. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has made a case for defining in one sentence the meaning of "urgency". That could be limiting in some cases, which could be dangerous—and not because it would be administratively inconvenient. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that this has been done not for administrative convenience but because both Government and Opposition, in the main, appreciate that there will be some circumstances in which lives could be at risk or a terrible crime is being, or is about to be, committed. The procedure could solve the crime or prevent it from happening; it could save lives. That is not a matter of administrative convenience but an important safeguard for the rest of our 55 million citizens.

Mr. Michael: I am worried that the amendment would not only provide a definition that may not be necessary but that it might get in the way of operations and lead to dangers to the public. I shall come to that in a moment. I am stimulated to intervene not least by the fact that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was at his sanctimonious best. Labour will not take lessons from the Liberal Democrats on the importance of civil liberties.
Last year, the Security Service Bill was improved in Committee by sensible debate. In that debate, we pressed the Government and received assurances from the Minister that, at the earliest possible date, two things would happen. First, there would be a service authority to introduce accountability for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the proposed National Crime Squad. In the event, there are to be two service authorities with overlapping membership. Secondly, it was promised that intrusive surveillance, which was dealt with in respect of the Security Service in that Bill, would be made subject to legislation. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed took much interest in that important step at the time.
That step was extremely important, and so are the measures before us today. The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that the protection of an application to circuit judges, which would introduce the delay and bureaucracy entailed in an application to a court, would provide as strong a protection of civil liberties. It would delay decision making and bring it into disrepute. It would increase the use of the urgency provisions and provide inadequate protection of civil liberties. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the House of Lords were mistaken in preferring that option, and why the amendments moved by the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords were the right approach.
The change that has happened is right. It was a sensible development. There was a debate. The outcome was a triumph for intelligent debate, which had been going on long before the press and public became interested. The change that happened means that we now have protections in the form of prior authorisation by a commissioner on sensitive matters relating to property and, for example, legal privilege. There were some worrying discussions about interference with legal privilege in areas not covered by the scope of the Bill. I think that the Minister sought to respond to that matter in a short debate at the end of the Committee proceedings yesterday. The matter will need to be returned to because there is a great deal of concern about the way in which it is being interpreted.
The speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was a mixture of high principle and absurdity. He was rightly sensitive to the idea that intrusive surveillance should not take place gratuitously or to meet the administrative convenience, whether of organisations of individuals or the state as a whole. That is right. I respect his passion in raising that point, as all hon. Members would, but we need a balance. Action sometimes needs to take place urgently when it is necessary to catch criminals or protect the public. The balance in the Bill now is a good deal better than before, but to swing in the opposite direction would undermine the operations about which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed expresses concern through the wording of his amendment.
The question is what operations require urgency. Are the operations the only things that would define urgency? The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the case of a kidnap victim. He has misunderstood the nature of the authorisation that would be needed in those circumstances. He said that it was obvious that everything should be done to protect someone who had been kidnapped, where there was danger to life. Clearly, that is the case, but it is not always possible to predict the movements of the kidnappers or what premises they will go to. Intelligence that a kidnap victim will be taken to particular premises might require surveillance of those premises at short notice in the interests of the protection of the victim and the effective conclusion of the operation. That is surely a sensible priority to allow for. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, in those circumstances, it would be so obvious that the victim needed to be protected that self-authorisation would be allowed.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: All I am saying is that provisions in the criminal law give the police authority to arrest people for kidnapping or whatever. That is why I have difficulty in understanding why we need to set down the principle that everyone should be authorised by a warrant from a separate institution such as the magistrates court.

Mr. Michael: I see that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the example that was given, which was that of the need to undertake intrusive surveillance of premises to which a kidnap victim might be taken in order to undertake the operation of safely rescuing that victim. There are examples that go precisely to the point of the authorisations in the Bill and to the sort of circumstances in which urgency might arise.
My concern is that, if the amendment were to be passed, it would allow the urgency procedure to be used only where delay would be likely seriously to prejudice the effectiveness of the operation. Other matters might be urgent, such as the protection of the public or the avoidance of danger to the public or to police officers. The amendment would prevent the urgency provision being used in those circumstances, and that would be a grave mistake. I certainly understand the reasons why the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed wants to define urgency more closely, but his amendment would introduce a danger that the use of the urgency provisions would be so constrained that police officers and members of the public were put at risk. That would be a dangerous mistake to make.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his usual stalwart contribution on civil liberties matters, as I have been grateful for his support in earlier stages of the Bill. I am also grateful for the closing words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I shall not dwell on his earlier remarks, except to say that he is an upholder of the longer and rather unhappy political tradition of never admitting that one was wrong, even when one has had the sense to change one's mind. That attitude is all too common in British politics, but I see no merit or advantage in it.
The Minister's remarks were echoed to some extent by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in saying that we must have an urgent procedure because lives may be at risk. I simply emphasise that the existing procedure, with no urgency provision, has to be operated when terrorism is being fought by the Security Service. If that service is aware that a surveillance operation is necessary because of the prospect of a major bomb outrage occurring, it gets to the Home Secretary quickly, and gets the authorisation in an efficient manner.
What I do not want is a cumbersome and slow system of approvals for the police when dealing with serious crime that necessitates frequent recourse to an urgent procedure in which they do not have to get approval in advance. The Minister has said, and has referred to parts of the code of practice that say, that urgency has to be genuine. He has underlined that the urgent application will not merely be reviewed as to whether it was a good idea, but will be open to being quashed. That quashing might not have any effect if the operation has already been completed, but one quashing of an urgent application at a relatively early stage might serve to concentrate minds wonderfully from then on. I hope that that does not prove necessary, but the Minister has today helped to make clear it that the procedures should be used only in an extremely limited and closely defined set of circumstances.
There may be dangers in narrow definitions, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth illustrated some of the dangers of broad definitions by using phrases such as "where there is danger to the public". There is danger to the public in all these matters—there is danger to the public in most serious crime and all terrorism. However, we have to have procedures that ensure that rapid action can be taken where that is needed and that the civil liberties of the vast majority of citizens, who are not engaged in any of those activities, are also protected.
The Minister has helped to put that firmly on the record, and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 104

APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 44, line 13, leave out from 'complainant' to end of line 14 and insert 'under Schedule 7'.

No. 13, in page 44, line 45, leave out 'remain' and insert 'be'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 106

APPEALS BY COMPLAINANTS

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 45, line 31, leave out 'Subject to subsection (4)'.

No. 15, in page 45, line 34, after 'Commissioner' insert 'appointed under section 91(l)(b)'.

No. 16, in page 45, line 36, after 'complainant' insert

'by virtue of paragraph (a)'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 108

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 47, line 5, leave out from 'writing,' to end of line and insert

'the notice may be transmitted by electronic means'.— [Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Beith: I was slightly concerned when the amendment was tabled and even more concerned when I saw the Government's explanation for it. The amendment would allow documents used in the process of obtaining authorisation to be sent by e-mail. The Government's explanation is that that could be used only if the police, customs and the commissioners are satisfied that the communication will be secure. That is obviously a fundamental point: communication must be secure, because the matter is highly delicate. If information became known to those being surveilled, the operation would be defeated and, in addition, other kinds of confidential information about operations would emerge.
However, e-mail is a threat to the security, not only of the communication, but of the systems at each end. Use of electronic mail involves access to the computer system from which it goes and the computer system into which it goes, so the condition that the Government have kindly included in their notes on clauses—that e-mail will be used only if they are satisfied that the communication will be secure—will not do. E-mail is a real danger to the security of the body of material that will be stored by the secretariat of the commissioners, and to the computer system of the police force sending that information.

Mr. Maclean: indicated dissent.

Mr. Beith: The Minister shakes his head. If he seeks to deny that, I shall draw his attention to various places in various documents to which his Department has access which make it clear. I hope that the Government will now take that into account.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has drawn attention to a proper concern, which the Minister sought to allay, in Committee and subsequently, by saying that he would want to be satisfied of the safety and security of communications. Under this part of the Bill, communications can be made in a variety of ways, including in writing, and writing can be extremely insecure if the wrong means are used, so I have no objection to the inclusion of electronic communications.
I should be grateful if the Minister would satisfy us that requirements will be placed on those using such systems so that there is some oversight to avoid the dangers. There are secure and insecure facsimile transmissions. Can the

Minister assure us that secure fax, not insecure fax, will be used? The same thing applies to all communications where there may be risk, not only to operations, but to individuals' safety.

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give the House the maximum assurance that I can on that. There is e-mail and there is e-mail. This will not be a loose Internet system. The police already have a secure system for communicating throughout the country and we have a national communication strategy, which aims to connect up the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts in future, mainly to speed up the processing of criminal cases. I envisage part of that system being used and the commissioners being linked to it.
I do not understand the technicalities, but I know that, although the Home Office is connected to the Cab-E-Net system, it is impossible for a person in another Government Department—even on our network—to tap into all the files in the Home Office, or for us to tap into anyone else's files. Codes, passwords and electronic gizmos must be used and one can obtain access only to the part of the system to which one is entitled to gain access.
I do not understand the bells and whistles that make these things operate. I do not suppose that these computers have valves any more, but I am absolutely certain that, when the right valves are installed, the police will have access only to the files to which the commissioners want them to have access, and the commissioners will be able to correspond only with those parts of the police network that the police wish them to correspond with. That is achievable.
Of course there are security risks—someone may get it wrong, and there may be leakage in the system—but I know that, with the best computer brains applied to the matter, the secure systems that already exist in this country can be replicated for that system.
One of the advantages of e-mail is the speed that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed urged on us a moment ago. He does not want a slow, bureaucratic, burdensome system, which requires the commissioners to wait for a few days before taking decisions; nor do we. If we want an urgency procedure to work PDQ, the chief constable and his staff should be able to e-mail the commissioners, saying, "We have just used the urgency procedure; this is why," and the commissioners should be able to e-mail them back securely as soon as reasonably practicable, to approve or quash action.
Use of electronic mail is the best way to implement the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition and myself that such things be dealt with speedily. The technical experts tell me, and I know from my own amateur knowledge of computers, that it is possible to have a secure network. Security is vital, and I shall endeavour to make the system as secure as is humanly possible.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has demonstrated that he knows even less about the technicalities than I do—and I make no claim to be an expert. He has also revealed, I fear, that he may not be up to speed on the dangers to systems that may be generated by the interface between them. I counsel him to read some of the documents available in the Home Office and circulated by the appropriate authorities, or at least to ensure that someone else reads them.
I believe that this short debate will have drawn enough people's attention to the problem to ensure that some careful consideration is applied before the procedure is used.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 47, line 5, at end insert—

'() For the purposes of this Part, an authorisation (or renewal) given—

(a) by the designated deputy of an authorising officer, or
(b) by a person on whom an authorising officer's powers are conferred by section 94,

shall be treated as an authorisation (or renewal) given in the absence of the authorising officer concerned; and references to the authorising officer in whose absence an authorisation (or renewal) was given shall be constmed accordingly.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 112

CRIMINAL CONVICTION CERTIFICATES

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 48, line 33, at end insert—
'(5) Any day appointed by an order made under section 135 below for the coming into force of this section shall not be earlier than two years after the coming into force of sections 113 to 127 below.
(6) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an evaluation of the effect of sections 113 to 127 below and his assessment of that evaluation.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 135, page 59, line 11, after '(1)', insert
'subject to section 112 above,'.

Mr. Beith: We now come to a completely different part of the Bill, but one of fundamental importance, which has not been widely enough discussed. It concerns the power under which every employer in the land, for any job of any kind, can require an applicant to produce a criminal conviction certificate. That certificate will be the means of showing whether the person concerned has any unspent convictions.
There are clearly some sorts of work for which it is vital to obtain this sort of information; indeed, it can be vital to obtain even more information, and other provisions in the Bill allow for enhanced certificates to provide information that may be relevant to considering whether a person can be trusted to work with children or the elderly. But that is not what we are talking about here; we are discussing the general provision for criminal conviction certificates.
The amendment would delay the introduction of such general certificates until we had some experience of the working of the enhanced and other higher level certificates.
Outside this House and the Committee that considered the Bill, it has not perhaps been sufficiently appreciated how fundamental a change in our society will be brought about by this measure. Employers, because they have a duty to shareholders or to the organisations that appoint them, may increasingly feel a responsibility to see that no

one is admitted to their firms if something on their record might have offered a clue to any subsequent misbehaviour.
Hitherto it has not been the practice in this country to make this requirement. Certainly, some employers have used the existing data protection legislation to get people to bring along the information. That has been one of the reasons for introducing the new provisions, but it could be dealt with in other ways—the Government are still considering the problem of enforced subject access. But the rehabilitation of offenders will be made extremely difficult if everyone with an unspent criminal offence on his record has to produce this certificate.
Many people will give up applying for jobs because they cannot produce a clean certificate. Some will give up because their certificate includes an offence that is irrelevant to their job application. It may be something as minor as a driving offence conviction, even though the job for which they are applying carries with it no responsibility for a motor car.
Another example might be someone who had committed a sexual offence involving consenting males which is no longer a criminal offence but was when it was committed, because it involved someone between the ages of 18 and 21. The Minister has already confirmed that possibility. I drew his attention to the example of someone with such an offence on his record who has completely changed his life style. He might go for a job only to be told that he has to get a certificate. He would then tell his wife and family that he could not get the job because he needed to produce a certificate. "Well, you have never done anything wrong, have you?" say his family. He then has to disclose to them that there is something in his past, not part of his current life at all, which he has put behind him. It may be a matter of quite legitimate privacy, no longer constituting a criminal offence.
Those examples may relate to only a small number of people, but a far larger number will be affected by past mistakes of other kinds. One third of all males under the age of 40, I think, have a criminal offence on their record—a terrifying number—but most of them go straight thereafter and have nothing more to do with crime. We do not want them to apply for jobs with labels around their necks.
The amendment would delay the widespread use of general criminal conviction certificates until we have some experience of using enhanced certificates in posts for which it is clearly necessary to have such information. If we do not do that, we may have a Child Support Agency situation on our hands, with a huge body charged with an enormous task—there may be a huge take-up of those certificates because employers insist on them—with which it cannot cope. It may then start to make mistakes. We all know that the Child Support Agency has mistaken the identity of parents and caused terrible family distress. We do not want that to happen in this case, so let us deal with the urgent problem and see how we get on.
5 pm
General conviction certificates will be a problem in another kind of case, which the Minister has not explained properly. It is the case of an informer who has committed criminal offences but who assists in the prosecution and conviction of people guilty of serious offences and is then


given a new identity, and encouraged and enabled to settle in some other part of the country. The practice occurs mostly in Northern Ireland, but it also occurs in Great Britain, and resettlement from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is common.
When that person goes even for his first job, let alone his second, in the new life that the state has determined it is in the public interest to allow him to undertake, he will have to produce a criminal conviction certificate. He has a string of convictions, which, it has been decided, can now be overlooked because of the amount of assistance he has given in putting behind bars people who would pose a real threat to public security in the future. How will that be dealt with, given that there is no provision in the Act?
The obvious and sensible way to sort out those problems is at least to take some time over doing so. Many people who deal with the rehabilitation of offenders are extremely concerned about the provision's total effect. John Monks of the Trades Union Congress wrote to Committee members pointing out that the provision could
create a class of permanently unemployable people, many of whom have only offended once, and would be highly unlikely to do so again, particularly if they have steady employment.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): When I worked in the criminal justice division of the Scottish Office, some 67 per cent. of all first offenders never offended again. I do not know whether the figure has changed, but it is something of that order.

Mr. Beith: I, too, recall that figure. I have no other figure to hand. Everybody agrees that getting employment may be the biggest single factor in somebody subsequently going straight, so we must make it easier for people to get employment, not put a barrier in the way. We should confine the barrier to cases where there is a proven need. The Bill contains clauses that do that, particularly in relation to the worrying area of people with paedophile offences working in children's homes. We all realise how urgent it is to take action to resolve a problem that should not have been allowed to build up as it did.
Let us get that system under way before looking at general criminal conviction certificates, and give the body that will introduce those certificates time to prove its effectiveness and competence in the area where urgent need exists. Following the Government's unwillingness to accept my view about criminal conviction certificates generally, the amendment is a constructive suggestion about how we could proceed. We could then make progress in the most urgent area and see how that works before introducing into our society something that will worsen our crime problems, cause great personal hardship and distress, and achieve little value in the process. We may be able to judge the matter more effectively once we have seen how the enhanced certificates work.

Mr, Michael: I have some concerns about the amendment and shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. Some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are sensible in terms both of rehabilitation of offenders and of what should be the priorities, but I am not sure that they lead to the delay suggested in the amendment.
The priorities should be clear. The top priority must be the protection of children and vulnerable adults. I hope that the Minister would agree. The provisions of the Bill

must be co-ordinated with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the work of child protection at local level. Careful thought must be given to the way in which we should use the various pieces of legislation, each of which takes us a step further forward.
That is not the only issue that would be addressed by the checks for which the measure provides. A further element is honesty and integrity, which may be important not just to the employer, but to the public. The third element is the situation in the private security industry, which has been a matter of great concern over a considerable period.
We must ensure that employees in the private security industry do not have long criminal records. In Committee I gave an example of employers with a criminal record. A police superintendent told me about a partnership between someone with a record for grievous bodily harm and someone with a record for financial offences. In a business sense they may make a fine team, but in terms of the public interest, they are a dangerous team to run a private security firm. There must be protection against such employers, and in fairness, the industry wants regulation to protect the good name of firms that are doing a good job.
The private security industry is a case where information about a past record, not necessarily involving financial irregularities, is important and should be available as quickly as possible in the form of ordinary certificates, not necessarily the enhanced information that the Bill would make available.
We want the protection of children and vulnerable adults treated as the first priority. Thereafter, there may be a good deal of sense in implementing the Bill progressively, rather than adopting a big bang approach. There are examples of several Government agencies and initiatives where trying to do everything at once led to mistakes in details, which might have been discovered at an early stage but which brought down the entire system. The Minister would be wise to ponder that, and consider the timing of the introduction of the measure.
Part of the suggestion made in the amendment therefore has some attraction, but I am not happy that it specifies a period of two years after the full implementation of one part of the measure. That would narrow down and potentially delay the introduction of provisions in the Bill, with no clear justification. It might be more sensible to reconsider the time scale for implementation. We were not given much detail about that in Committee. Perhaps the matter has not been thought through to the extent that would allow a detailed time scale to be set out for the implementation of this part of the Bill.
For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the way in which the Bill is to be implemented and the amount of thought that has been given to that, without going so far as to accept the specific constraints for which the amendment provides.
Many people are anxious that we should achieve the right balance between the rehabilitation of offenders and ensuring that those with a criminal record who are likely to reoffend do not get into positions where they can prey on the public generally, and on children and vulnerable adults in particular. I have worked with young people who have been involved in offending, and I have had people working with me as a result of good work by the probation service on rehabilitating people after offending.
Individuals with that background can become valued members of society if they are given the opportunity to change their ways and to earn the respect and rehabilitation that should be open to anyone. The task is to get the balance right.
The Bill's implementation could achieve the right balance or it could introduce dangers. I hope that the Minister will say that, like me, he wants to ensure that in building in protections rehabilitation will be achieved, and that the proper balance lies within the thinking through of how we implement the Bill, which is intended to protect and assist the public.

Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that I have been fair to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in responding to the amendments. The amendments would delay the introduction of criminal conviction certificates and it might be suggested that they have been tabled because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues— this is the impression that they have given—greatly distrust the certificates. The issue has been much debated during the Bill's passage through both Houses.
I wish to assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed again that CCCs will not be as intrusive and unwelcome as he suggests. The certificates will be issued only to the individual who makes the application. They will contain only details of unspent convictions, which is entirely consistent with our commitment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The certificates will enable employers to confirm that the information that they have been given by an applicant is full and accurate.
I would be amazed if employers taking on an employee did not want to be provided with full information about the prospective employee. The nature of the relationship between employer and employee is one of trust. Nothing could be worse than a situation in which an employer was not fully aware of the background of the person he is about to employ.
The introduction of the certificates is likely to be phased in after the introduction of the other two types of certificate. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me to ponder about the timing of the introduction, and I have been pondering for some time. It is clear that the fledgling agency should not be flooded with applicants from the outset. I agree that it must be able initially to concentrate on issuing the more important and probably less numerous criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates.
However, the eventual introduction of CCCs is an administrative matter concerned with workload and timing, and not as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It will be done when it is considered that the agency will be able to manage the extra work. In all likelihood, it will be phased in at a slightly later time than the other certificates.

Mr. Rowe: I hope that my hon. Friend will take into account the real need for educating employers about the value of the information in the certificates. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, the rehabilitation of young men, particularly,

often takes place as a consequence of obtaining employment. Many employers have experience of taking on people with one conviction and finding that there is nothing wrong with them. I hope that we shall consider carefully preparing employers for the information that they will be seeking.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It is necessary for employers to take an intelligent approach towards these matters. They do so in the vast majority of cases now with information that they have requested and received. I hope that that attitude will continue when the certificates are available.
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said but I do not accept that it is necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the initial success of criminal record and enhanced record certificates before any CCCs can be issued. The introduction of CCCs is not dependent upon the perceived success of the other certificates. These will be different types of checks that will be carried out for very different purposes, and it is unlikely that the effects of criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates will tell us much about how CCCs will be used.
During the Bill's passage the purpose and nature of all three types of certificate have received full parliamentary scrutiny. We shall, of course, keep the operations of the agency and the extent to which criminal record certificates meet the purposes for which they have been created under review. But by delaying the introduction of CCCs by at least two years, which is the right hon. Gentleman's intent by means of the amendments, we may be delaying the implementation of a new criminal record system that, we believe, will be coherent, cost-effective, transparent and, above all, fair. For these reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments.

Mr. Beith: The Minister might have come close to persuading me to withdraw the amendment. He revealed that one of its effects would not be very far from what will in fact happen. He revealed that it is the Government's intention that the enhanced certificates— those dealing with the urgent cases in respect of paedophiles and those who will be employed in residential homes and have access to the vulnerable— must be given priority and that the agency must get on in dealing with them. The introduction of the general conviction certificate is likely to be some time after the enhanced certificates have been dealt with. The two years that is stated in the amendment, which the Minister considers to be a long delay, might well turn out to be reality.
It became clear that I had to press the amendment when the Minister said that there will be an administrative decision. It is not an administrative matter. We are talking of a fundamental change in our society. That will be the position when a prospective employee cannot get a job anywhere without producing a piece of paper showing whether or not he has a criminal conviction. In that way, we have changed our society beyond recognition, and in the process, I believe, we shall greatly impair the rehabilitation of offenders, and especially of young people whose only offence may have been to get into a fight


outside a pub at a time when they were less responsible than they have since become. However, they will still have to produce a piece of paper.
We are talking about a profound change and one on which Parliament should decide. We should reflect on the experience of using new and better certificates to deal with the special cases of people whose work is with the vulnerable or who work in the security industry. Let us then decide whether the proposals before us remain particular to certain types of employment or to every person applying for whatever job throughout the country. There is nothing in the Bill that will affect so many people as the provisions that we are now considering. Parliament should return to the issue. I shall therefore press the amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 271.

Division No. 97]
[5.17 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Paisley, Rev Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tyler, Paul


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wallace, James


Lynne, Ms Liz
Wigley, Dafydd


McGrady, Eddie



Maclennan, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mallon, Seamus
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mrs. Diana Maddock.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)



Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bowis, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Browning, Mrs Angela



Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dover, Den


Budgen, Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Burns, Simon
Duncan Smith, Iain





Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Porter, David


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy



Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Sir Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor






Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Trend, Michael


Speed, Sir Keith
Trotter, Neville


Spencer, Sir Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spink, Dr Robert
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spring, Richard
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Thomason, Roy
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Matthew Carrington


Tracey, Richard
and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 125

REGULATIONS

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 55, line 2, leave out 'section 115 (4) and insert
'section 112(1), 113 (1) or 115 (1) or (4)'.
The amendment will be of interest to hon. Members who care about charities, scout organisations, the Boys Brigade and the variety of organisations that will be affected by the cost of the charges for conviction certificates, especially for enhanced criminal conviction certificates.
A clear benefit of the arrangements proposed in the Bill, and one that we support, is that organisations dealing with young people and the elderly will be encouraged and enabled to obtain information about those who want to work with such groups, about criminal convictions and cautions and other relevant information. The need for such information to be available is vividly shown by the Dunblane experience and the case of Thomas Hamilton. The information known about Thomas Hamilton would have appeared on the enhanced criminal conviction certificate.
All the organisations in the charity sector are extremely concerned about the cost of these certificates. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are having conversations in the doorway please converse outside.

Mr. Beith: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This issue is important for many charity organisations, a number of which have made representations to us about the level of cost. The Scout Association estimates that the

cost of checks on their volunteers will be about £500,000 a year. Think of the number of scout money-raising events that will be required to raise that amount. The Guide Association estimates costs of £450,000. We should bear it in mind that those organisations demand much of their volunteers, and to expect them to pay this cost on top of everything else is too much. The Scripture Union, which runs summer camps for young people, estimates that the costs of checking would add an extra £30,000 merely to the costs of summer camps. The Boys Brigade has produced its cost figures, and other organisations, such as the Wing Fellowship and the Abbeyfield Society, which is involved in residential care for the elderly and has volunteers who back up the work of professional staff, are deeply concerned.
In the report of his inquiry, Lord Cullen noted that doing what he proposed involved costs. He wanted to ensure that checks are made on people working as volunteers with young people. Those costs should be kept within the limits of what organisations can afford. It is the view of almost every organisation that the likely costs are beyond the limits of what they can afford.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Lord Cullen went further and said that, if necessary, the fees should be subsidised. Is that not correct?

Mr. Beith: Yes, that is precisely what Lord Cullen said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing that out. In my youth, I was a scout in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not like to think of the amount of money that would have to be raised by local organisations to meet those costs. Lord Cullen said that, if necessary, they should be subsidised.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Government have said that, despite the efforts of our former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, in the other place, they are not prepared to commit Government expenditure, and that they want the scheme to be self-financing. If help is given to charities, it will have to be at the expense of private individuals who apply for general certificates. That cannot be right, and it is not in the spirit of the Government's acceptance of most of the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report.
Now that the Government have rejected the view of the vast majority of their Lordships under the leadership of our former Speaker, and have overturned that good amendment to the Bill, we must ensure that the cost issue comes back to this House. The effect of the amendment would be that the House would have to approve, by affirmative order, the scale of charges to be imposed. We would then know precisely how much was involved, and the charities would know how much it would cost them.
We could put those figures in front of the Government, and if we were not satisfied with the scale of charges, we could defeat the proposals and force the Government, whoever was in power, to make proper and satisfactory provision for charities. I invite hon. Members to ensure that this matter comes before Parliament—it will be the next Parliament, after the general election—and that the real concerns of charities about the costs involved will be brought to bear.
If organisations were not doing the jobs they do, the Government would have to find other ways in which to do them. Those organisations keep youngsters out of


trouble, and care for the elderly. The cost savings to public funds that they create are enormous. We owe it to them to ensure that they do not have to foot an unreasonable and unaffordable bill, so that the people in their care are looked after by people who are fit to do so. It is important that they should make those checks, but they need help to do so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the amendment. The Government recently refused to accept a report that recommended a self-funded social services council, whereas they propose to impose further charges on a limited number of people who voluntarily give of their services, and on charities which, in many other ways, have subsidised public expenditure. When the number of volunteers has fallen, it is wrong to impose further charges on organisations.
I speak from years of experience in the Boys Brigade movement and the Scripture Union. I recognise that, in our churches, where a fair bit of the charity support comes from, fewer people are doing voluntary work. If we think that their work benefits all the nation, then all the nation should support it. We should not leave it to a coterie of volunteers. I support the amendment, which would allow the matter to come back to the House for further consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I share much of the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who told the House that he was a scout in Macclesfield. I commend him on that, because I am involved in the scout movement. I am a member of the Macclesfield and Congleton district scout council, and I am a vice-president of the Cheshire county scout association, but I am not speaking only on their behalf.
There are 150,000 non-profit-making sports clubs in this country, with a total membership of 6.5 million people. Each of those clubs is run predominantly by coaches and staff, all of whom freely put time and effort into promoting sport in their locality for the benefit of all. Many, if not all, of those clubs rely on the hard work and commitment of their volunteers to stay afloat. I know that for a fact through my involvement with clubs in Macclesfield. They have not the additional money with which to pay even a £10 fee for each volunteer.
The charging of volunteers for criminal checks sits uneasily with the determination of the Government, and our Prime Minister, to promote volunteering and grass-roots support throughout the country. At the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage delivered the Government's youth pledge—that all young people who wanted to volunteer would have an opportunity to do so by the end of 1997. I understand that £3 million was allotted for the purpose.
This Conservative Government also recently launched a new policy document entitled "Young People Make a Difference", the aim of which was further to encourage youth volunteering. The document outlines an ambitious programme to increase young people's opportunities to volunteer, and reflects part of a much wider agenda throughout government to support volunteering and youth development.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the subsidy should come from central Government?

Mr. Winterton: I shall answer that question directly in a moment.
I put it to the House that charging volunteers—many of whom have no income, and many of whom may be on income support and other benefits—is hardly likely to encourage more people to volunteer.
Given my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I must say that, if there are to be charges—for good reasons, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will explain when he winds up the debate—I think that they should be subsidised from the centre. I know that that would inevitably involve additional Government expenditure, but I believe that it would benefit the country financially. I think that it would be wrong for us to provide any sort of disincentive to young volunteers, especially when both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for National Heritage have said that the Government want to see much more volunteering, and are giving it considerable support.
I rest my case. I am worried—as, I am sure, are other Conservative Members—about the impact that charges will have on many charitable organisations, such as youth groups and non-profit-making sports clubs. I think that we have given too little support, and that our former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, reflected widespread public concern when he successfully moved amendments in another place.

Mr. Rowe: I declare an interest. Among other things, I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers, the organisation that places the largest number of long-term young volunteers in the country. Our organisation clearly has a vested interest in the debate, but there is more to it than that: as many hon. Members will know by now, I believe passionately in volunteering.
I enthusiastically support the "Young People Make a Difference" initiative, and wish that it had gone further. I believe that there is a huge untapped pool of volunteers out there, in a society in which increasing numbers may retire in their fifties with a life expectancy of 86 years or more. Many of those people will have retired on exiguous pensions; many will have very little income from any source other than benefit. Those are the people who volunteer least, but they are the very people we wish to encourage.
Someone aged 54, who has retired prematurely, may be anxious to contribute. That person may come along and say, "I have a skill. I would quite like to coach the under-11s"—or whatever it may be. What do we find? The first thing that that person is told is, "We are so pleased that you have volunteered. Of course, you will have to pay £10 or more as your first contribution." No voluntary organisation can expect that, and the organisation will therefore pay the money itself. As several hon. Members have pointed out, that means a massive contribution, which voluntary organisations can ill afford.
5.45 pm
I understand the Government's point that the certificates are intended to be personal certificates for personal use, and that there is therefore a risk that a number of people who received their certificates free, as volunteers, would use them for other purposes. There must clearly be a mechanism whereby organisations can


be reimbursed for the cost of volunteers who can be shown to have made a contribution, and are not simply cheating in order to obtain free certificates. In principle, however, we cannot expect volunteers to multiply— especially among the lower paid and those with no income—if we are going to strap them for cash by imposing this financial disadvantage.
I do not very much care whether we have an affirmative resolution, or a negative resolution against which we can pray, I am certain that we should debate the matter in the new Parliament. I believe that the Secretary of State, whoever that may be—I am sure that it will be one of us—will be expected to find money to make reimbursement possible, and I firmly believe that the Government must take into account the real apprehension among a large number of organisations that their bills will be forced up for no other reason than their enthusiastic embracing of the Government's own policy of increasing the number of voluntary helpers.

Sir Michael Grylls: Important points have been raised. As others have said, the voluntary movement is a hugely important part of our national life.
I should like to say a little about the Prince's Trust, which has done much to help people start their own businesses—especially disadvantaged people who do not receive much help from other sources, and do not have much capital. The trust does a wonderful job encouraging people from disadvantaged homes to set up businesses: I believe that it helps tens of thousands every year. It would be sad if there were any deterrent to that wonderful, constructive work.
Interestingly, this has become—in a sense—an all-party debate. We have heard important contributions from hon. Members representing Northumberland, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northern Ireland and other, obviously English, constituencies. The House seems to be saying that we should consider the charges carefully, and do our best to ensure that they do not deter volunteers. Organisations such as the Prince's Trust are providing the future lifeblood of our country by encouraging people—who may not have a family history of entrepreneurism—to become entrepreneurs. I hope that that will indeed be looked at carefully, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of what is being said.
I think that the idea of the Bill is very good, but I hope that we will examine this part of it.

Mr. Michael: I welcome the debate, and the concern for the voluntary sector that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I, too, was involved with the Prince's Trust in its early days, and chaired its Wales committee: I know something about the work involved in getting money to, in particular, the youngsters on street corners whom other trusts—and, indeed, the public sector—have sometimes found it difficult to help. Such work is extremely important.
Opposition Members will also know of my personal interest in the voluntary sector and of the Labour party's commitment to volunteering in particular and to the voluntary sector generally. This week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition launched a policy document that offers new encouragement and a new

relationship of partnership between government and the voluntary sector. We will be determined to implement that document in government.
The policy document makes clear our commitment to nurturing the voluntary sector and to encouraging volunteering as an essential act of citizenship for people of all ages and from all sections of society, and it follows from a concern that the relationship between government and the voluntary sector had increasingly been one of government taking for granted the work of volunteers, charities and voluntary organisations. We have sought to put that right through a period of consultation and discussion in every part of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and we will seek to address the matter in government.
I share the concern of hon. Members that there are dangers of a disincentive to volunteering if the Bill were introduced without sensitivity and without the greatest care. As was said in the discussion on an earlier amendment, the priority must be the protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults. That must be addressed in the way in which the Bill is implemented. The amendment has stimulated a useful debate, but it would be cynical of the Liberal Democrats to push it to a Division, because it appears to support voluntary organisations without actually delivering anything.
I have spent my life involved with volunteers. As a Queen's scout and a former scouter, I referred in Committee to the concerns of the scout movement. I understand it because I have been involved and have seen it at first hand. I was subsequently involved in other forms of voluntary youth work. For some 16 years, I worked as a youth and community worker involved in the recruitment, training and support of volunteers in all aspects of voluntary work. For that reason, I understand the importance of providing support to those organisations.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am listening with bated breath to understand how this Parliament can justify the Scout Association, Barnardo's and other organisations, or their volunteers, being charged. I am still waiting to hear the justification for that. It is indefensible. As for making declarations, I was leader of the Rams patrol and, in this place, I am vice-chairman the all-party Scout Association group, for which I am proud to speak on this occasion.

Mr. Michael: I make no comment on the name of the patrol that any particular hon. Member might have represented. My hon. Friend has misunderstood the nature of the amendment and of the debate. The debate is important, but I was coming precisely to the point about how the issue has been addressed during our debates. In bringing forward their plans and in planning the establishment of the agency, the Government failed to think through the impact that the Bill might have on volunteering and voluntary organisations, but they have gone some way to meet our concerns, and amendments were agreed in Committee that addressed that precisely.
The Government originally intended to delete the amendment proposed by Lord Weatherill and agreed in another place, but, instead of simply deleting it and returning the Bill to its original form, the Minister agreed in Committee to introduce an element of flexibility, which


allows discussion with the voluntary sector, proper consideration of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members during the debate and, therefore, arrangements to be made that take those points into account. That is precisely the point.
That was a victory for common sense, and the change in the Bill is extremely important. Certainly we would be committed to meeting voluntary organisations and, in particular, volunteering organisations to discuss their concerns and to ensure that things are thought through before the flexibility that has been achieved by the amendments that were agreed in Committee lead to the Bill's implementation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support that approach. It came as a result of amendments in another place, followed by discussion in Committee.
As I said to the Minister in Committee, I welcome the greater flexibility that results from the amendments that were agreed in Committee, and I hope that he agrees that we need to be very careful about how the charging system is developed and implemented to protect, wherever possible, the interests of volunteers and volunteering organisations.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am well aware of the fact that hon. Members do not like the idea of fees for groups such as volunteers. I suppose that none of us does ideally, but we have already agreed, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, to provide for the possibility of introducing free checks for certain groups if it is considered appropriate in future. As he said, that was accepted in Committee when the amendments inserted in another place to provide free checks for volunteers were overturned.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: I have only just started.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is very important and it is on that point.

Mr. Kirkhope: I must give way to a leader of scouts.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister said that free checks might be introduced if they were deemed appropriate. His colleague said in parliamentary replies that that would happen as and when resources permit. Frankly, hell will freeze over before that happens. If this goes on the statute book, this Government, if they are returned to office, or another Government, will find it difficult to find the money. We have to establish the point now that there should be free checks for these very important voluntary organisations.

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman is being pretty fierce for a patrol leader, but I am coming to the points that he has raised.
Let me stress that we recognise the enormous amount of good work done by volunteers. Over the years, I have been involved in quite a number of voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Northwest Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) referred to the Prince's Trust, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I am very keen on it as well. It is an excellent organisation.
Our opposition to Lord Weatherill's amendments does not undermine the Government's long-standing commitment to volunteering, which was encapsulated in 1995 in the "Young People Make a Difference" initiative. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, that document made it clear that the Government encourage preferential treatment for volunteers in relation to, for instance, youth work development grants, the Millennium Commission giving priority to programmes for bursaries and grants to help young people to volunteer, and employers allowing employees to be involved in volunteering without cost or expense.
The Government have done many things to encourage volunteering. I assure the House that, before introducing the Bill, we carefully considered whether voluntary organisations should be afforded free checks but, as I explained to the Committee yesterday, responsible Governments have to make tough choices. We rejected the idea on the grounds of equity, practicality and—for the benefit of Opposition Members—cost.
The Criminal Record Agency, which will issue the certificates, has been planned on the basis that it will be self-financing. At the moment, therefore, there are simply no funds available to pay for free checks for volunteers. I do not want to become embroiled in an argument about numbers, but it is necessary to do so to give an idea of the financial effects of Lord Weatherill's amendments.
Between 8 million and 20 million people act as volunteers—I cannot give a more accurate assessment, and I do not believe any other hon. Member can—so it is difficult to estimate precisely what the cost of free checks would be.
Assuming that checks were restricted to new volunteers, and that only those eligible for the higher level of checks—enhanced criminal record certificates—were included, the minimum sum likely to be needed would be about £10 million a year. However, that could increase considerably if demand for checks was stimulated, as it could be, if they were free and were sought in a blanket way, rather than after careful consideration of whether they were really necessary for each organisation.
If there were a requirement that existing volunteers be checked, as was suggested in another place, the sums involved would be between £40 million and £200 million in the first year. We do not believe that it would be right to commit ourselves to providing a blank cheque when we are trying to hold down public expenditure.

6 pm

Mr. Rowe: Those figures are notional indeed. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby voluntary organisations would be able to claim money back only if a volunteer were shown to be in the category for which checks were required.

Mr. Kirkhope: Yes, but I was about to say that there is also the question of practicality—the very point that has just been raised. If we had accepted the amendments passed in another place, not only would provision have had to be made for the costs of the checks themselves, it would also have been necessary to put in place complex administrative arrangements to filter out particular types of check.
There would have to be a list of all organisations that might be likely to appoint volunteers, and each application would need to be screened to ensure that


the statement waiving the fee was from a bona fide voluntary organisation. The type of post being applied for would also require close scrutiny—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already suggested that we might differentiate between various posts—so that the agency could satisfy itself that the applicant would not be receiving any remuneration other than expenses.
Those procedures would be time consuming and require the agency to take on additional staff. That would all add to the costs to be met either from the public purse or by increasing considerably the charges levied on other users of the Criminal Records Agency.
That brings me to equity. As the agency was envisaged as being self-financing, and as there are no funds in existing budgets for free checks, the money to pay for them could be found only by diverting funds from elsewhere or by charging non-volunteer applicants more for their checks. We do not think that that would be fair, especially as if we redistributed the costs in that way it is likely that the charges incurred by other users could double.
Many of those eligible for the more detailed and costly checks are in relatively low-paid jobs associated with the caring professions, while many of those who would require criminal conviction certificates could be the unemployed who were seeking work. Hon. Members have already said that such categories of people may be deterred from volunteering, but what about those seeking certificates for the purposes of finding work?
It cannot be right to expect people on low incomes to subsidise all volunteers, as many of the volunteers may be much better off than they are. If fees were waived for volunteers, the Government would come under considerable pressure to waive the fees for low-income groups and the unemployed, increasing further the amount that would have to be taken from public funds.
The fairest way of meeting the costs therefore continues to be to spread them across all those using the agency. Such an approach means that the fees charged can be kept as low as possible. As I am sure the House is aware, the cost envisaged for a criminal conviction certificate or criminal record certificate is about £5 or £6.

Sir Donald Thompson: When all that is finished, who will own the licence, the agency or the individual?

Mr. Kirkhope: The certificate to be applied for, certainly at the basic level—the CCC—will belong to the individual, who can therefore prove his status to those who might need to know it.
As I have said, the costs are low—£5 or £6 for a basic certificate, and for an enhanced certificate between £8 and £10. In our view, that should not prove burdensome for most volunteers, and it should not discourage them from continuing to make their valuable contribution to the community through their voluntary work.
We recognise, however, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has been fair enough to say, that there is a need for flexibility. We do not want to

rule out the possibility of providing free checks for deserving groups at some point in the future. That is why we tabled an amendment in Committee to provide a power to allow certain groups, such as volunteers, to be exempted from paying fees for criminal record checks.
The measures in part V put in place a long-awaited improved system of access to criminal record checks that will undoubtedly offer better protection to vulnerable groups such as children, and will provide reassurance to those who appoint people to positions of trust. Voluntary organisations working with children and other vulnerable people have been among those who have most particularly sought access to checks. It was in direct response to them that we included the provisions in the Bill, and it would be a great pity if speedy implementation of the necessary measures were delayed because money is not available to cover the costs of free checks for volunteers.
The amendment would require the regulations in which the fees and forms for criminal record certificates are prescribed to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative procedure, as is provided in the Bill.
As with all regulations that deal with fees or the form of applications, it is necessary to provide for routine changes that are always necessary—to take account of inflation, for example. It is not possible to justify the use of the affirmative procedure for that purpose. We would be setting an undesirable precedent if regulations specifying the modest sums of money involved in the fees, or the form applications must take, had to occupy the time of both Houses every time a small adjustment was needed. That process is not necessary, because we are already making the regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure, thus providing the opportunity for scrutiny by Parliament.
I believe that the present provisions are sufficient to meet the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members, and I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has enumerated many reasons why he believes the Government will not assist charities with the costs of the checks that they will have to carry out. The existence of a power in the Bill to do so appears to be no more than a nominal concession. Because of the concern among charities and the sums of money involved, I ask hon. Members to ensure that the House must debate the scale of charges when it is introduced. At that point we shall be able to bring to bear again the concerns of the charities. We should give the next Parliament the opportunity to ensure that charities are not faced with a cost that they cannot bear, and which could destroy the enormously valuable work that they do. I shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 267.

Division No. 98]
[6.6 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beggs, Roy
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)






Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ross, William (E Londy)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Skinner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCrea, Rev William
Thumham, Peter


McGrady, Eddie
Tyler, Paul


Mackinlay, Andrew
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wigley, Dafydd


Mallon, Seamus



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Mrs. Diana Maddock and Ms Liz Lynne.


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)



Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Elletson, Harold


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishbum, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Sir Graham
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles



Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gorst, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coe, Sebastian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, Sir John





Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stem, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Mates, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Sir Roger
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Walden, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilkinson, John






Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 129

CHANGE OF NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN POLICE AREAS

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, a manuscript amendment: in page 56, leave out lines 27 and 28.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Speaker for selecting the amendment which—as a manuscript amendment—is unusual at this stage. But when I explain the circumstances in which I asked the Speaker to accept the amendment, hon. Members will understand why I thought it important to give the House an opportunity to debate an issue that will affect the people in my constituency—and every constituency covered by Humberside police—because of the impact of a change that took place yesterday in Committee.
In some ways, I am sorry to speak against the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who moved that amendment in Committee. On many occasions, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I have worked together to represent the interests of north and north-east Lincolnshire, but on this occasion I cannot support him, and I shall explain why.
Hon. Members from all parties should support my amendment, which would delete the amendment agreed to in Committee yesterday to change the name of Humberside police to Humber police. Hon. Members might ask themselves what is so important about changing the name and that is a good question. Humber police is not a great name, is it? We do not call the Metropolitan police the Thames police, or the Merseyside police, the Mersey police. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes sounds as if he wants the police to concentrate on police boats going up and down the river Humber checking shipping. The name is not sensible.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a rare occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I are on opposite sides on behalf of local interests. In our 10 years as next-door neighbours, we have usually worked together on local issues, and I will not fall out with him because of today's debate. I remind him that when the county of Humberside was abolished, the Government's regional office in Leeds changed the name of Yorkshire and Humberside to Yorkshire and the Humber—the Humber has become an accepted term for the region.

Mr. Morley: That is true, but in that case the name had to be changed because it referred to the county of Humberside, which no longer exists, so there was no choice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we still have the Humberside fire brigade and that that name will not be changed by his amendment. We also still have the Humberside ambulance service, but for some reason we are to have the Humber police. It does not make sense.

Dr. Godman: In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), when the Government got rid of Strathclyde regional council even they retained the Strathclyde police force.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
During the consultation period on local government reorganisation, the police authority and all the local authorities were consulted about the name, and wanted unanimously to keep the name Humberside police. The force's operational area is still within the county boundary of the old county of Humberside.
Hon. Members should oppose the amendment agreed in Committee for three reasons. First, on consultation, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has his own view of the name Humberside. It is an anathema to him. He has criticised Radio Humberside, saying he did not like it because of its name. Disliking a name is not sufficient reason to change it. The change could cost up to £1 million. It is outrageous that a decision was taken in Committee that will have far-reaching implications in terms of cost to Humberside police, when there was no consultation with local people, the police authority, the chief constable and Members of Parliament representing the Humberside police area, nor any consultation with local parish and town councils. No one had any say in the change. It has been sprung on us with no consultation.
If there were a groundswell for change, we would listen. I did not object to the name of North Lincolnshire for my new unitary authority because I knew that there was a groundswell of opinion for it. There is no groundswell in the former Humberside area for a name change of this kind.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not object to the fact that the local authority changed its name to North Lincolnshire. Would he accept changing the name of the police authority to the North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire police authority, which is precisely what it is?

Mr. Morley: The same points apply. People should be asked for their view of the change. If there is to be any change, local opinions and views should be sought. There was no attempt to do so before the amendment was agreed to in Committee, and that is why I object to the change. There has been no consultation. I have seen no groundswell of opinion, I have not had a single letter on the subject and not one person has mentioned to me that the name of the Humberside police force should be changed.
When people in the old Humberside area realise that the change could cost up to £1 million, which will come out of the police authority's budget, they will wonder why the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—a Member representing Lincolnshire—is so concerned about changing the name. The authority will not cover his area.
The cost is the third point. The Minister should think carefully. Will he consider accepting my amendment rather than making me force it to a vote? If he does not accept my amendment, he is telling the people of Humberside and the four councils in the area that they will have to find nearly £1 million—according to the chief constable with whom I have been in touch today—out of the existing police budget simply to make that change. How many police officers will be affected by that? Does not the Minister think that fighting crime, dealing with criminals and ensuring that there are police officers on the streets are far more important than changing the name on a cap badge or the side of a police car? That is what the Minister should think about, and it is what every hon. Member thinks about.
If the Minister will not accept my amendment, he and those hon. Members who go into the Lobby to support the Bill as it stands should realise that people in my area will think that they and the Conservative party care so little about fighting crime and about effective police resources that they are prepared to take £1 million from a police authority budget simply to drop the "side" out of Humberside. That is unacceptable. There has been no consultation. The views of local people have not been taken into account and a good police force might be crippled by having to find that £1 million.
I read in the Hansard report of proceedings in Committee that the name change could be phased in over a number of years and introduced as it can be afforded, which is a ludicrous idea. One cannot have one police car going out with Humberside police on it and another with Humber police, or half the police force with one cap badge and half with another. It does not make sense and would be a bureaucratic nightmare. That is why we Labour Members are saying that our priority is fighting crime. Our priority is law and order and we do not want to waste money changing four letters in the name of a police force. We want to ensure that the money that the local police authority has is used to greatest effect and that means by fighting crime and not messing around with a name in this way.
Dropping the "side" in Humberside will not only let down the side referred to in the name, but will let down the side as regards representing the people of the area and ensuring that the money is used to fight crime.

Mr. Michael Brown: As I said in my intervention, it is a rare occasion when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I disagree on a local issue. We have been good neighbours, and normally we are on the same side.
The hon. Gentleman speaks of lack of consultation. The position is simple: I served in Committee on the Bill, and I saw that it was within the long title to table my amendment, which has been on the amendment paper and known to the hon. Gentleman since 25 February. Any Member of Parliament who studies the Vote bundle can see any amendment that is tabled and take appropriate action.
If he had been watching the proceedings of the House, the hon. Gentleman would have known that my amendment was selected for debate by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on 11 March, so there was no attempt to slide it through; every hon. Member knew that I was on the Standing Committee and that I had tabled the amendment that first appeared on the amendment paper on 25 February.
6.30 pm
Yesterday, when my amendment was debated in Committee, it was open to any member of the Committee to vote it down. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government were neutral, and said that he and his Front-Bench colleagues would not participate in a Division. It was possible, therefore, for the Opposition to call a Division and defeat my amendment, but I am delighted to report that it was made without a Division, after a good debate that covered several issues.
The most important point for me to stress is that the county of Humberside no longer exists. I spent 16 years, from the day on which I first entered the House, trying


unsuccessfully to persuade successive Ministers in the Department of the Environment that the hated county of Humberside should be abolished. Eventually, in February 1995, the House passed a statutory instrument enabling the county to be abolished and the new unitary authorities to be set up.
The Government recognised that, with the abolition of Humberside, some names would need to be changed. The Government regional office of Yorkshire and Humberside was renamed Yorkshire and the Humber. The Post Office acknowledges that to write Lincolnshire on a letter is an accepted form of address.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe says that he has had no complaints about the name of Humberside constabulary, but that is not my experience. Whenever the name Humberside arises in a water, electricity or gas bill or in reference to the fire service I get a large number of letters from constituents who say, "You have abolished the county of Humberside, Mr. Brown, so why do we still have Humberside police and Humberside ambulance service?"
From October this year, the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine will be served not by the Humberside ambulance service but by the Lincolnshire ambulance service.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right, but that change will be the result not of any popular movement but of the daft internal market and the tendering procedure, in which Lincolnshire ambulance trust happened to win.

Mr. Brown: I suspect that, if I pursued that avenue too far, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order. However, I will say that, with the Lincolnshire ambulance trust taking over the responsibility for the ambulance service in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman, myself and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I bet that the name Humberside ambulance service, which will cover only east Yorkshire, will not remain.
I bet that, when the name is changed, there will be no suggestion that £1 million will have to be spent on changing the names on the ambulances. In October, when the present Humberside ambulance trust becomes responsible only for Hull and East Yorkshire, it will call itself not Humberside but East Riding. It will not spend £1 million painting out names on ambulances immediately and change all its notepaper. It will have to continue on existing budgets, because that is the structure of its cost basis.

Mr. Beith: I have listened with great interest, but is it not the case that all the people who object to having Humberside on their bills and letters really want Lincolnshire on them?

Mr. Brown: That is correct. I have been waging a campaign, of which I gave notice when we passed the Order in Council giving effect to the setting up of the current structure of unitary local government—it is in my speech in Hansard—that I would do everything possible to expunge the word Humberside from the English

language. Yesterday's opportunity that was presented to me in Committee was simply a part of that continuing campaign.
I have successfully persuaded Anglian Water, Yorkshire Electricity, British Gas and BT to recognise that the name Lincolnshire must appear on their bills. There has been a cost to those companies, but the bills have not increased.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe touched on cost, but I believe that that is a red herring. He was right to remind the House that the chief constable is concerned about the cost implications, but I dispute the chief constable's figure of £1 million. If the change were to be made overnight, I believe that the cost would be about £250,000.
I have received the same list as the hon. Gentleman from the chief constable, who says that to effect the change he will have to get new uniforms for 3,000 people, including regulars, specials and support staff; he will not have to get new uniforms unless he is terribly profligate. All that has to be done, eventually, over some time, is to change the name tag on the shoulder pads. He does not have to get new headgear, as all he has to do is change the badge.
The chief constable says that he will require funds for marketing the new name; he does not need to spend a halfpenny doing that. He says that he has to write off existing stock of all headed notepaper and official literature, including legal documents, summonses and warrants; that is not so: my constituency association is changing its name from Brigg and Cleethorpes to Cleethorpes, and we do not have the money to go to the printing presses tomorrow to change everything, so we shall continue to use the old notepaper until the last sheet has gone. That is therefore a red herring.
The chief constable speaks of vehicle livery for the whole fleet; but, when new police vehicles are purchased, they can have Humber on the side, while existing vehicles continue to have Humberside on the side, just as, when later this year the name of the Humberside ambulance trust changes, that will have to be done by a gradual process.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is playing down some of the difficulties. Some of the uniforms have the name woven in; one cannot simply tear them off and sew on a stripe. Taking off the names on police helmets is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman would like to believe.
When my three local councils were brought together, they did not want the expense of a change, but realised that it would be too complicated if they did not act at once, so they went for a stick-over logo; even that was quite expensive. Even people who argue for local government change complain about the costs that go with it: the new signs and headings and the office administration. Should not people be given a choice as to whether they want to pay £1 million to change a name?

Mr. Brown: I do not support police uniforms being scrapped until they need replacing. In Committee yesterday, I said:
I understand that the chief constable may be concerned about the cost implications. If the Committee approves my amendment, we should do everything possible to ensure that the name change takes place only as and when resources allow the chief constable to


replace motor vehicles and uniforms. I know that he is anxious about costs and it is essential to recognise that the last thing we expect the chief constable to do is to reorder new uniforms, police cars, equipment, and so on.
The Minister made a similar point. I intervened on him and said that I accepted his warning that he did not expect the chief constable to engage in additional expenditure to effect the change. I asked:
If the Committee agreed to the amendment, would it be acceptable for my right hon. Friend's Department to send some sort of guideline to the chief constable acknowledging that it would not expect him to incur expenditure overnight on changing badges and logos, and that it fully understands that it could take several years for the proposal to come into effect?
My right hon. Friend replied that he would draw our remarks to the force's attention, but:
The Home Office has no constitutional right to send a guideline to that effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 March 1997; c. 279–282.]
He accepted that his neutrality was based on the clear understanding that there would be no immediate requirement to spend money on effecting the change.
It is important to recognise that the name Humberside is still synonymous with the hated county of Humberside. I simply took the opportunity presented by the Police Bill. I would never have dreamed of introducing such legislation on its own. It is rare that the House gets an opportunity to table amendments that affect a locality. If I had not taken advantage of this opportunity, I might have had to wait another five or 10 years. The chief constable does not want to change the name, because he is concerned about the growing demand in the old South Humberside area for our area to be policed by the Lincolnshire force.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the consultation showed no demand for our constituencies to be taken over by the Lincolnshire force. Let me remind him that there is a growing demand in the old south Humberside area for the Lincolnshire police to take over policing because Humberside appears low down the crime ranking order relative to Lincolnshire. We often have undue problems with the Humber bridge, which is the single link between the two halves of the police area. If the majority of my constituents had their way, they would be policed by the Lincolnshire police. The chief constable is worried that the Home Secretary of the day may decide to ensure that the police authority and local government areas are more closely matched. That is why he overstates the case on cost grounds.
There is a case to be made, and it is the responsibility of Parliament—not the chief constable, the local authorities or the parish councils—to take legislative decisions about such matters and to test them in the Lobbies, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to press his amendment. It is rare for us to disagree on local issues. We have had, and I am sure that we will continue to have, a very good working relationship. I am sorry that it has temporarily broken down.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have been in the House for a long time but I have never known an occasion when, on a matter affecting the title of a county or area that he or she represented with another hon. Member, the Member who had the bright idea of changing a name did not inform colleagues directly—

Mr. Brown: It was on the Order Paper.

Mr. McNamara: Not through the Order Paper.
Secondly, I am surprised that a matter that affects the whole area was not referred to the local authorities, the parish councils or even to the police authority. The action of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was discourteous to his colleagues. We can live with that, because we are used to such things. More important is the cavalier way in which he has treated the people who he claims to represent in Humberside.
Fortunately, at the general election, the Labour candidate in his seat will to be able to say that the hon. Gentleman is the man who would profligately spend £1 million on changing a name—£250,000 a letter. That is the equivalent of 20 policemen. He is prepared to watch the money go, just like that. That says much for his concern for the safety and security of his constituents. Fortunately, he will not have that responsibility in future.
The hon. Gentleman is prepared to play with their physical safety and that of their homes and of the roads by being prepared to spend £1 million to satisfy a childish phobia about a name. He says, "I hate the name, I want it expunged." What sort of stupid arrogant attitude is that? What a waste of public money.
6.45 pm
The Government say that they are neutral, but they are prepared to allow £1 million to be wasted. The same Government could not give me £300,000 under the safer city initiative to protect the safety and security of people who live in high-rise flats in my constituency. They could not give me that, but they can give £1 million for the foolish idea of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a mild, meek and gentlemanly character, has got so carried away. I want to give him a breather. I challenge the hon. Gentleman about the figure of £1 million. The chief constable would be profligate to spend £1 million overnight to effect the name change, but he has no need. My exchanges with the Minister showed that only out of petty mindedness could the chief constable be profligate enough to do that. I would not expect him to spend £1 million.

Mr. McNamara: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is not what he means. He is really saying that he is prepared to spend that money over several years. He is prepared to allow the money to be spent, whether at once or over a period, on a foolish scheme. He says that I am usually mild, courteous, gentle and kind, that I kiss my wife and do not kick the dog. That is all true, but I get angry when something concerns the physical safety of my constituents, and the security of their homes is put at risk by hare-brained schemes.
The one thing that makes me even angrier is the Government's attitude. Time and time again we have applied for schemes to protect my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in Hull and had them turned down. Then Ministers turn round and say, "Here, take £1 million—£250,000 a letter—to get rid of the 'side' out of 'Humberside'." We shall be left with the Humber police force. What a glorious idea that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has shown.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes says that he wants his part of Lincolnshire to be policed by Lincolnshire police authority. I understand his wanting to go into Lincolnshire. As far as I am concerned, Lincolnshire is more than welcome to the hon. Gentleman. Yet both banks of the Humber have common interests, in terms of effective policing, as we have had on such things as drug smuggling and so many other issues. Humberside police force has expertise on such matters as drug smuggling because of the maritime nature of the area and the nature of the ports on both sides of the Humber, down the Trent and up the Ouse.
Humberside police force protects not only our citizens in Humberside but the citizens of the greater part of the country. Some of the greatest attempts to import dangerous drugs occur in Hull and other Humberside ports. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wants to break up and spoil that expertise when it is just beginning to get on top of drug smuggling. Why? Because he does not like the name "Humberside." He would spend £1 million on changing it. For goodness sake, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that we are supposed to be demob happy, but this is demob lunacy.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Some people who do not represent my part of the world— you represent Plymouth, Drake with great distinction, Madam Deputy Speaker—may wonder why people are getting so worked up in this debate. The issue is of great importance locally. For those who are not familiar with it, it goes back to 1974 when the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), whom I was delighted to see in the Chamber a moment ago, decided to tear away from the rest of Lincolnshire parts of north Lincolnshire, including Scunthorpe, Grimsby, Glanford and Brigg. That caused enormous ill feeling. Unofficial local referendums were conducted and massively subscribed to because the Government led by my right hon. Friend, whom I now see entering the Chamber, did not allow an official referendum on the issue. The people of Lincolnshire wanted to be one, but they were not consulted.
After almost 20 years of campaigning by people like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the county of Humberside has finally been abolished and people can once again say with pride, even if they live in Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Brigg, Glanford or wherever, that they live in Lincolnshire. To them it is an important issue.
This is not simply an unimportant debate about a name. People in Lincolnshire feel strongly about it. That is why, as a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Police Bill, I tabled my own variant of the amendment proposed today by my hon. Friend. I proposed that we should change the name of the Humberside police force to North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire police force. That is what people want deep in their hearts.
People who live in Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Hull think of themselves as belonging either to Lincolnshire or to Yorkshire. That is the reality. I was told by my

hon. Friends and by my right hon. Friend the Minister that it was not possible to proceed that far. It is important to local people.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman chose the names of two unitary authorities and left out the other two. He is as stupid as his hon. Friend.

Mr. Leigh: That was an unworthy intervention. The hon. Gentleman and I enjoy good relations on other matters. People who live in Hull know perfectly well that they live in east Yorkshire. People who live in Scunthorpe or Grimsby know that they live in Lincolnshire. That is the fact of the case. That was the reason for my amendment, but it was not accepted.
The campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has met with success. The county of Humberside has been abolished. He is now rightly pressing to have all other public bodies expunge the name from their titles.
Listening to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), one would think that people do not attach importance to this issue. They do. I constantly received letters from people in the north part of Lincolnshire before the Post Office changed its rules who were angry that, although they lived in Lincolnshire, they had to put "Humberside" in their address. They did not like it. A name is important. People in Lincolnshire want that fact acknowledged.
My hon. Friend's amendment is important for another reason. I have talked about the symbolic importance of a name, but as my hon. Friend says, this goes further. Last week I had a long conversation with the chief constable of Lincolnshire. I cannot repeat what he said in private, but there is mystification as to why the two police authorities in north Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire have not been amalgamated. It is a serious point.
I represent villages in the northern part of Lincolnshire just south of the old county boundary between South Humberside and Lincolnshire. I receive complaints from people in places such as Keelby about the long police response time when an incident takes place. I am sure that people on the other side of the old boundary make the same complaint. The nearest headquarters is Gainsborough or perhaps Market Rasen. How much more sensible it would be to have a unified police authority. We should have created a unified police authority from the north Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire forces.
Lincolnshire police authority has performed superbly in the past 20 years. The chief constable told me that, before reorganisation, about two thirds of the crime in the county was committed in what is now Lincolnshire and one third was committed in South Humberside. The position is now reversed. Two thirds of crime in the county is now recorded in the former South Humberside and one third is committed in south Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire constabulary has a superb record of performing a comprehensive service within its budget.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman digresses from the argument about policing, which was considered and rejected. Humberside has a major drugs problem associated with the Humber ports. It makes sense to have an estuary-wide police force. There is a logical argument for that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people


should be consulted about changing the name and that the cost should be considered? I have a suspicion that, if people in north Lincolnshire had realised that the local government reorganisation would mean a 28 per cent. increase in their council tax, they might have had second thoughts. People ought to be consulted on whether they want to pay £1 million to change the name of the local police authority.

Mr. Leigh: We all know that the figure of £1 million is grossly inflated. The letter from the chief constable is absurd. The change will not cost £1 million. As my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes have said, the change could be phased in over a considerable time.
I can now draw my remarks to a conclusion. This is not simply a little campaign by my hon. Friend in which local people take no interest. He is not simply trying to get a few headlines in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. It is nothing to do with any of that. It is important. If it was not important, why has my hon. Friend been able to show me a sheaf of letters from organisations such as the Great North Eastern Railway, the Benefits Agency, the Post Office and the Lincolnshire ambulance service, all saying that they are changing their name? Indeed, the Rural Development Commission is actually changing its name to the very name that I suggested in my amendment— North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire. As far as I know the Rural Development Commission is a serious and well-respected body. It obviously considers the matter important, but it has not said that it will cost it £1 million to change its name. The chief constable is using absurd arguments.
Local people attach importance to this matter. My hon. Friend's amendment does not go far enough, but I appreciate that mine cannot get through tonight, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to respond to this short and slightly heated debate. From the Government's point of view, there are only two principal issues here. In Committee yesterday, I said that I would not attempt to impose the Government's view of what the area should be called—I did not consider it my duty to do so, nor was it appropriate. I said that I would be happy to take the Committee's opinion on the matter and leave it to a free vote in Committee. That is what happened, and I shall return to that subject in a moment.
7 pm
The other point I wish to make relates to cost. If I thought for a single moment that the cost of a change of name from Humberside to Humber, as was decided in Committee yesterday, would cost £1 million—either next year or over ten years—I would have had to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I was sorry, but the Government could not remain neutral because that was an excessive cost, up with which we would not put.

Mr. McNamara: Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter and the costings with the police authority or the chief constable?

Mr. Maclean: The chief constable, as I said yesterday, has said that he does not wish the name to be changed,

and he has sent a letter making that view clear. Attached to the letter is a document headed, "Areas incurring implementation costs." These areas lead him to conclude that the cost could be £1 million and they include vehicle livery for the whole fleet; writing off existing stock; and marketing the new name.
I accept that, if the name was changed, whatever it was changed to, the cap badge would have to change in due course—I do not, however, accept that uniforms would have to change—and as official notepaper was replaced, it too would have to change. However, I do not accept for one moment that existing stock bearing any name needs to be written off at all—that would be an appalling waste, and I would not contemplate such action. Nor would I accept that a single penny of taxpayers' money should be spent by any police authority on marketing a new name. I know what marketing costs from when the Home Office has attempted anti-crime drives. It would be easy to spend £1 million on marketing a new name—it is possible to spend £5 million on marketing a new corporate identity without seeing any great benefit from doing so.
There is only one way in which costs could rise to £1 million and that is if a decision was taken overnight to spend an awful lot of money on a new corporate identity, marketing a new name, writing off all existing stocks and changing overnight. I have said that an authority could do that if it wished, but I would not intend any of the generous increase in funding that we have given Humberside police over the years to be spent on such action. I made that clear in Committee yesterday.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said. We have allocated sufficient extra funds to Humberside and we intend to continue the programme of allocating money for extra bobbies. Humberside, which has increased the number of its officers over the years to 2,042, can now recruit an extra 85 officers because of the extra funding promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Last year, we allowed Humberside police a budget increase of more than 5 per cent.; this year, it could increase by 3.8 per cent. We have put in that funding, and I want all of it to be spent on fighting crime. That is what it is all about.
I made it clear in Committee that, if the change went through, I would not want any money to be wasted on marketing a new name or corporate identity; and it would be scandalous if the costs of a change of name reached a fraction of £1 million, let alone £1 million.

Mr. Morley: To balance its budget this year, Humberside police took £750,000 from its reserves in order to solve its funding problems and meet its commitments. The Minister may quibble about the figures, but I have confidence in the chief constable of Humberside. Whatever the real figures are and however much is spent on changing the name, that represents money being diverted from fighting crime and protecting the interests of the people of Humberside. How can the Minister justify that?

Mr. Maclean: If that is how he feels, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should have voted against the amendment yesterday in the free vote in Committee.
Humberside has been generously funded; there can be no quibble about that. If it took money from reserves, that is because the 5 per cent. increase last year allowed it to build up generous balances.
The crucial and fundamental point is this: yesterday in Committee I made it absolutely clear that the Government were neutral on this issue. I warned my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that I could not support his amendment and said that I would vote against him; I warned him that he would probably lose. If my hon. Friend had lost in Committee yesterday, the Government would not be coming here today with an amendment to reverse a free vote in Committee—that would be intolerable.
Similarly, I do not propose to reverse an amendment that yesterday went through on a free vote, with no one voting against it. I am content to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and in the Government that, although we had a free vote on the issue yesterday in which members of the Government abstained, the Government will not try to overturn tonight an amendment that was passed by a free vote. We will support the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) demonstrated the foolishness of trying to be too clever with his amendment yesterday, but the Minister has compounded that by making himself look ridiculous today. This is a local issue, and it should be decided by local opinion. Yesterday, I thought the Minister agreed with that point.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has not learnt the importance of listening to local people, but in the debate he made clear his absurd obsession with grinding the name of Humberside into oblivion, irrespective of the impact on policing or whether £1 million might be taken out of the police budget. That money should be spent on preventing, fighting and detecting crime in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman is not interested in that—he is interested only in the name.

Mr. Michael Brown: I cannot believe my ears. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and yesterday had the opportunity to defeat me. If he and all Opposition Members had voted against my amendment, I would have lost. Why did he not vote against me?

Mr. Michael: It is perfectly clear, and I shall come to that question in a moment. The hon. Gentleman tabled amendments, and in the course of the debate I asked the Minister, who had not referred to any consultations undertaken by his Department, to tell us about any such consultations and about the wishes of the local police authority and others. The Minister did not answer that question—he did not tell us the views of the local police authority. He said, in a low-key manner:
The chief constable certainly sees no need for change; nor does Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary recommend that any change is essential.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 March 1997; c. 282.]
After we emerged from the Committee, I saw a letter that had been sent to the deputy Leader of the Opposition expressing the chief constable's opposition. It was not the

gentle opposition that the Minister had suggested, but strong and passionate opposition of the sort that has been illustrated by my hon. Friends tonight. The chief constable wrote:
Such a change could only have perceived symbolic advantage, particularly when there are other agencies continuing to use 'Humberside' as part of their title … Not only is change unnecessary, but to implement it would cost in the region of a million pounds.
That is why my hon. Friends have come today to say on behalf of their constituents that they believe that £1 million expenditure would be more beneficial to their constituency if it was spent on crime prevention and on policing in their areas, rather than on a change of name.

Mr. Maclean: Obviously, the Labour party is in a blind panic tonight. Having agreed with, and not opposed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes yesterday and said nothing in Committee, letting an amendment go through on the nod, why does the hon. Gentleman oppose it tonight?

Mr. Michael: Because I am able to answer the question that I asked the Minister, which he was unable to answer in Committee. The Minister abrogated his responsibility by not consulting on the amendment in Committee and maintained his neutrality there but, ridiculously, he says that tonight he will not give the House the choice, but will vote to spend £1 million on a change of name over a period, instead of allowing that £1 million to be spent on policing local communities in Humberside.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 271.

Division No. 99]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Alton, David
Flynn, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Barnes, Harry
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, Andrew F
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Church, Ms Judith
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Corston, Ms Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
McCrea, Rev William


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Dowd, Jim
McGrady, Eddie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maclennan, Robert






McWilliam, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rooker, Jeff


Martlew, Eric
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Michael, Alun
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Simpson, Alan


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Straw, Jack


Mullin Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Metthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Hara, Edward
Tyler, Paul


Olner, Bill
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L



Pope, Greg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)
Mr. Kevin McNamara and Mr. Elliot Morley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Ashby, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)



Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Elletson, Harold


Booth, Hartley
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Sir Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butcher, John
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carttiss, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair



Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clappison, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Gorst, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)





Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion



Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kynoch, George
Sims, Sir Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stem, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Sir Roger
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Walden, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)






Waller, Gary
Willetts, David


Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 6

APPLICATION TO NCS SERVICE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 75, line 7, leave out 'and'.

No. 20, in page 75, line 9, at end insert

', and

(c) the word "not" shall be omitted.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 99, column 3, line 30, at beginning insert—

'In section 146A(1A), the word "not".'

—[Mr. Maclean.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 1997
Finance Act 1997
Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997
Policyholders Protection Act 1997
Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Act 1997
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997
Knives Act 1997
Architects Act 1997
Lieutenancies Act 1997
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997
Justices of the Peace Act 1997
Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997
Local Government and Rating Act 1997
Police (Property) Act 1997

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 5 agreed to.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the order of business later today and the business to be taken tomorrow.
It is intended that the House will consider Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill immediately following motion 6 relating to Northern Ireland business, and that the House will consider Lords amendments that are expected to be received to the Education Bill immediately after the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The business for tomorrow will be:

Money resolution on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Hedgerows Regulations.
Motion on the legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills.
Motion relating to the First Report from the Administration
Committee (Session 1995–96) on all-party and parliamentary groups.
Motion relating to the First Report from the Procedure
Committee on Standing Orders revision.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I am not sure that it deals with the main item of outstanding business in this Parliament that has been on Members' minds today, but I cannot comment on that; nor perhaps can the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is still sitting.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall take Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill and the Education Bill this evening. I wonder whether that is the best way to proceed, given the weight of other business this evening and the fact that Members interested in those Bills may not have enough notice of when they are coming on for discussion. We have no wish to delay either Bill, but would it not be wiser to consider the Lords amendments to them tomorrow, when there is far less business than this evening?
This is the fourth business statement that we have had in little more than 48 hours. Will it be the last?

Mr. Newton: I certainly hope that this will be the last business statement and I have every expectation that it will be, but in an uncertain world I had better not go further than that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement in relation to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. On the other points, we concluded—I hope that it will not cause too much difficulty for her—that, given the extent of the agreement reached on the two Bills to which I referred, it would be sensible to proceed with them this evening.

Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend informed the House that there will be a motion to deal

with revision of the Standing Orders, but an amendment to the motion on the Order Paper has been tabled by the majority of members of the Procedure Committee, urging that the second annexe be included. It is a simple annexe that modernises the names of Committees in the House, so that a Public Bill Committee will be known as a Public Bill Committee, not by some other rather subfusc name. I hope that that matter can be raised and that, if anybody is thinking of voting against the amendment, my right hon. Friend will use his powers to persuade him or her that the Government have always been in favour of modernisation.

Mr. Newton: I do not think—[Interruption.] I do not need to be reminded by the Opposition Chief Whip intervening from a sedentary position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have studied carefully the case that my right hon. Friend made in his report for the amendment to which he refers. I hope and expect that they will have an opportunity to make that decision if they wish.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Assuming that this is the last business statement that the Leader of the House will make, how much Government business will not be taken before the Prorogation of Parliament? In his capacity either as Leader of the House or as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, can he give us a report on how far that Committee has gone in its deliberations and in dealing with the report being prepared by the Commissioner? If the hon. Members, some of whom are on record as saying that they want the report published, give their assent, can the report be published before the general election?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) rightly acknowledged the difficulty for me of speculating, as it would be at the moment, about a meeting of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which would be proceeding now but for the fact that I am making this statement to the House. I cannot, therefore, do that. On the earlier point, the Government have effectively carried the business that they intended to carry at the beginning of the Session, although some of the Bills are not quite in the form that was originally intended. However, the bulk, even of those Bills, has been passed and they contain many important proposals. Apart from that, I can think only of a number of not particularly urgent regulations that were among the remaining orders, which have not been tabled in order not to take up the time of the House.

Dame Jill Knight: Without wishing to trespass in any way on the deliberations of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, would not the normal procedure for that Committee ensure that any report by the Commissioner could not possibly be published until the Committee had been given an opportunity to discuss and consider the points that the Commissioner had made?

Hon. Members: It has.

Mr. Newton: That is certainly the case.

Mr. Peter Shore: The whole House is greatly encouraged by what the Leader of


the House said about the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. In resuming his discussions on that matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how monstrously unjust it would be, both for hon. Members affected by the inquiry and for their constituents, to have the matter hanging over them without the proper publication of the report of Sir Gordon Downey? I am sure that he is aware of how much the reputation of Parliament is involved in the completion of that inquiry, given that nearly three years have passed since the great offence of cash for questions was first brought into the public domain.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I pay respect, particularly at the end of his distinguished parliamentary career, has revealed the difficulty of my making any comment at all on that matter. I judge from the early part of his remarks that he may have been reading more than I intended into what I said. This can be judged only once the Committee has finished its proceedings tonight. Given that several Committee members are in the Chamber, I am sure that they will bear in mind the points that he made.

Sir Michael Spicer: Given that my right hon. Friend has just announced that the Administration Committee's report will be presented tomorrow, will he confirm that a gap of two months will be allowed during which Committees such as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee will be allowed to re-register?

Mr. Newton: Yes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that the necessity for his statement now, and the events of the past two days, have been occasioned by the decision to prorogue Parliament on Friday, not on Thursday week, which would have been possible? Is he aware that page 33 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that since 1974 it has been the practice at general elections to prorogue and dissolve Parliament on the same day? Why not have Dissolution and Prorogation on 8 April to allow the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to continue its work, as it has done in previous periods? If he will not do that, he is not being
as open as possible with Parliament",
as paragraph (3) of motion 10 on the Order Paper says he should be, and which he will invite the House to approve later this evening.

Mr. Newton: I simply do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Have not all the Select Committees been working extremely hard to get their reports out in time for the Prorogation of Parliament? Many Select Committees that have not published their reports will publish them tomorrow. Since everybody has been aware for some time of the need to complete those reports so that they can be published before Parliament dissolves, why has not the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges done its work on time like every other?

Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend seeks to draw me into matters beyond that which I should properly discuss

on the Floor of the House. It is, however, absolutely clear that the Committee's work depends on receipt of a report from the Commissioner, who has been examining literally thousands of documents and much other material. When that report is received, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, the Committee will have to consider it, and provide any hon. Members who are criticised with an opportunity to make representations and for them to be considered.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not manage to muster the same encomium for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) as he did for my distinguished colleague here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)? I hope that he will not repeat the same error when I have finished. Am I not correct—as I usually am in the House—in presuming that changing the date of Prorogation would in no way affect the functioning of this House or the other place, or the general election timetable?

Mr. Newton: I am happy to rectify what the hon. Gentleman saw as an omission in respect of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for whom I have formed a high regard during his years in the House, and I am happy to say so. I say the same of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), although his many qualities are not entirely the same as those of his right hon. and hon. Friends alongside him.
As for the rest of the question, it has always been the practice, as far as I am aware, to bring proceedings in the House to an end at the earliest practicable time, once an election has been declared. The reasons for that are obvious.

Mr. David Shaw: Why cannot my right hon. Friend find time tomorrow for a debate on the £2 million of blind funds that are financing the Leader of the Opposition and Labour Front Benchers? There have been allegations in The Sunday Times that money laundering went on through an Oxford university account, and that possibly a foreign donor—it has been suggested that George Soros may be that foreign donor—has donated funds through a laundered bank account. One business man, Mr. Robinson—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Leader of the House to find time tomorrow for a particular debate. Will the Leader of the House respond as to whether there is time or not?

Mr. Newton: That interrelates with the point that I have now made several times, that it is not appropriate for me to discuss matters before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges as I have been invited to do.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity of saying farewell to his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who will not be with us much longer?
May I ask the Leader of the House a simple question that goes to the heart of the problem that he has faced this week, which has resulted in a succession of chaotic business statements? As this has been the longest


peacetime Parliament this century, there can be no conceivable reason why the Government should be in a chaotic state in managing business at the end of the Session. They have known for a long time when the date would come. The sole reason why they have made a succession of business statements this week and why Select Committees cannot complete their work is that the Government have decided to prorogue Parliament on Friday. Can the right hon. Gentleman please give the House and the country a simple explanation of why it was imperative that the House should be prorogued on Friday, and not next Thursday?

Mr. Newton: There are two points there. I have already touched on the first: it has always been the practice to bring proceedings in the House to an end at the earliest practicable moment, once an election has been declared. I would add, as part of the hon. Gentleman's question echoed that of the hon. Member for Newham, South, that the process of negotiation that always occurs at the end of a Parliament and which, on this occasion, has been rather complicated by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, particularly in another place, will always lead to a great deal of uncertainty at the time when the business before the House is being cleared up for the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House agree that, bearing in mind the fact that we have time until about 8 April for the House to sit if need be, some consideration should be given to the comment made by the Prime Minister on "The Frost Programme", that the whole mess should be cleared up before the general election? Can the right hon. Gentleman now arrange Government business in such a way that at least the Prime Minister's expectation in that regard can be met?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, if I recall rightly, made it clear that it was his wish and hope that these matters should be resolved before the end of the Parliament. It is absolutely clear that those matters are, in the first instance, for the Commissioner to produce the report, then for the Committee to consider that report. It has not been possible for the Commissioner to complete the report.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point that, now that it has been decided to go for an election, it is necessary to have an early Prorogation of the House, but, for academic purposes, would he consider the possibilities if Prorogation were delayed by a week? If that happened, how, in terms of natural justice, would it be possible for the Committee to complete all the reviews, take all the evidence, summon before it those who are implicated in the report and get that out of the way? How do we know that that could be done within a week? What we do know is that as soon as the report came before the Committee, some hon. Member from the Labour party would leak it to the press.

Mr. Newton: Once again, I am invited to make comments that it would not be proper for me as Chairman of the Committee to make. I have said on two or three occasions that it would be necessary for the Committee to

consider the report, although I cannot be sure at this moment exactly what that would entail. It might well entail quite an extensive process.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if no changes are made to the business statement that he has made today, the report will be locked in a cupboard during the general election? That would not be satisfactory for the hon. Members who have been implicated, as they would have no chance to clear their name before they faced the electorate. The prospect of the report remaining in a cabinet until the new Parliament assembles and a new Committee is appointed—at the beginning of this Parliament, that took six months—is intolerable, when the reputation of Parliament is at stake in such a serious and important matter.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what I said earlier or to what you, Madam Speaker, said in your statement this afternoon. As I have said several times, members of the Committee are present and will have noted what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House, recognising his own difficulty in dealing with the situation, recognise also that on "The Frost Programme" the Prime Minister said that he did not want the report "kicked into the long grass"? Surely what has happened will make people feel that the report has been or is being kicked into the long grass, because of many pieces of legislation that the Government have striven to get through. Will the right hon. Gentleman take any responsibility for the arrangement of business, or will he say that the Prime Minister said one thing, but acted in such a way as to suggest that he wanted something quite different to happen?

Mr. Newton: I am certain that that is not the case, if, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is making an allegation against my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to feed that allegation, that is a matter for him. I cannot add to what I said. I do not regard what has occurred in a long, complex and difficult inquiry as constituting kicking this "into the long grass", as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at the chorus of calls from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for an extension of the life of this Parliament, when for months the Leader of the Opposition has been calling for an early Dissolution of Parliament? Does he agree that that is a desperate attempt to conceal the good news about the British economy from the British people by a process of smear and innuendo, which the House should hold in total contempt?

Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend says that, and I suspect that many people will share his feelings. Again, as Chairman of the Committee, I think that it would be right for me to restrain myself.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Leader of the House will be aware of the Prime Minister's wish that the report should be published before the election. He will be aware


of the view of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that the report should be published before the election. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a Committee of the House and works according to the decisions of the House. There is no reason why the House could not pass a resolution that Sir Gordon's report be published now and that the Committee consider it after the election. Will the Leader of the House make time for us to consider such a resolution, so that the report can be published?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for your response, Madam Speaker, to points of order earlier this afternoon. You made it clear that publication in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests was not an option.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend considered one possible advantage of delaying Prorogation, which would allow time for debates on the fact that the crime figures showed a fall on Monday, the public sector borrowing requirement came in lower than expected on Tuesday and the unemployment figures have shown a vast improvement today? Such debates would allow the House a chance to expose the fact that the policies recommended by the Labour party would jeopardise improvement on all three fronts.

Mr. Newton: I entirely agree that it would be nice to provide further opportunities for such debate, but at present I have no proposals to make such time available.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is peace in our time on electoral registration figures. I hold a piece of paper on which is set out the global totals of people who are on electoral registers. The problem is that there is only tomorrow for names to be added to the lists, tomorrow being the last day for supplementary lists. The global totals show that there are still 3 million to 4 million people missing from electoral registers. Before we prorogue, should we not have an opportunity tomorrow, or even on Friday, to discuss the state of electoral registration? We are moving into a general election that will be based on the arrangements that I have described.

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to provide such an opportunity. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that his persistence seems to have achieved even more than the undertaking that I understand he was given yesterday, when he was told that he would get the figures tomorrow. He seems to have received them a day earlier even than had been hoped.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you; that is the end.

Northern Ireland Business

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders No. 99A to 99H below shall have effect;
(2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, by inserting 'or a motion in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business))' after the words relating to the Welsh Grand Committee which were inserted on 11th March 1996;
(3) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall be amended, in line 21, at the end, by inserting 'or to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and
(4) Other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

99 A. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)



(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than twenty-five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
(2) The quorum of the committee shall be ten, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).
(3) the business of the committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order No. 99 D (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
(d) bills referred to it for consideration or further consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));
(e) such legislative proposals and other specified matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland));
(f) instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)); and
(g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

(4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

99 B. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)



(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee by Northern Ireland Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.


(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for Bach day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired, save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments):

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
99 C. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)


(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Northern Ireland.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5) (a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

(6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
99 D. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements).



(1) The chairman of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Northern Ireland, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.


(3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
(4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

99 E. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)



(1) On the order being read for the second reading of a public bill relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

(2) A bill so referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
(4) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (3) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(5) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the Bill be referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

(6) A bill so referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(7) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (6) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(8) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (7) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

99 F. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)





(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a legislative proposal or other specified matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the legislative proposal or matter referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said legislative proposal or matter.
(3) In this order and in Standing Orders No. 99 A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)) and No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) 'a legislative proposal' means a proposal for a draft Order in Council relating exclusively to Northern Ireland.

99 G. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)



(1) Where—

(a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved,

a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the instrument be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.


(2) The Committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the instrument' is made, make without notice a motion to extend to three hours the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

99 H. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)



(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on not more than two specified days in Northern Ireland (at places to be named by the Member appointed chairman), the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at such hours as shall be specified;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;

(e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) on certain of the days so specified;
(f) to consider legislative proposals and other specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) on certain of the days so specified;
(g) to consider specified instruments (whether or not in draft) which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(h) to consider motions for the adjournment of the committee made under paragraph (5) below on certain of the days so specified;

and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Northern Ireland, nor from considering at a sitting in Northern Ireland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.


(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
(3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.
(5) On a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) above, after the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked me to convey his apologies to the House for his absence, which is due to other pressing business which he cannot postpone. The House will know the nature of it.
Ever since the onset of direct rule in 1972, successive Governments have been aware of the democratic deficit in the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. That is why we place so much importance on the multi-party talks that have been going on in Belfast over the past nine months. The future well-being of Northern Ireland requires that, as part of a comprehensive settlement based upon consent, progress is made in restoring democratic accountability in the Province.
We do not, however, have to wait for what we all hope will be a successful outcome to the talks process before anything can be done. The present arrangements in Parliament for scrutinising the affairs of Northern Ireland can be improved at once. Over the years, a number of such improvements have already been made. For example,


we established the Northern Ireland Committee in 1975. Since 1976, we have published Northern Ireland Orders in Council in draft. The purpose has been to give right hon. and hon. Members, as well as other interested persons and bodies, the opportunity to comment on the legislation and to propose changes before the House is asked to approve the order.
Then, in 1994, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was established so as to secure proper scrutiny by the House of the departments for which I am responsible. I am sure that all agree that it has since proved itself well, producing a number of valuable reports. It was at that time that the Northern Ireland Committee was renamed the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
It was with the same motivation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last October his intention to introduce the changes detailed in the motion. As he explained in that speech, Scottish and Welsh Members had recently been given greater ability to question Ministers, and my right hon. Friend wished to extend that same facility to Northern Ireland.
In October 1996, I wrote to the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties represented at Westminster, and to the Opposition parties, explaining how this might be done, and seeking views. There is still some diversity of view on our proposals, but the Government believe that we should now move forward with changes that will bring an immediate benefit to the governance of Northern Ireland.
I shall outline the principal changes briefly. Northern Ireland Office Ministers would in future make the public expenditure survey statement for Northern Ireland to the Grand Committee, in place of the current briefing arrangements. Northern Ireland Office Ministers, including any Minister in another place, would make statements and take questions in Committee on a regular basis. Cabinet and other departmental Ministers whose responsibilities extend to Northern Ireland would be able to make statements before the Grand Committee, and be questioned on them. It is intended, subject to a suitable venue or venues being identified, that some Grand Committee meetings should be held in a Northern Ireland venue.
Greater use would be made of the existing power to hold debates, both general in character and to consider specific proposals for draft Orders in Council. Those meetings which are held under the existing Standing Orders always prove valuable. It should also be possible on a Government motion for draft Northern Ireland orders and Orders in Council to be referred to the Grand Committee, instead of to a Standing Committee, or be taken on the Floor of the House, as at present.
The Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be able, on a Government motion, to consider certain Bills relating exclusively to Northern Ireland. In effect, this would be in the form of Second and Third Reading debates. There would finally also be provision for half-hour Adjournment debates at the end of Grand Committee meetings. Those changes would bring the Northern Ireland Grand Committee broadly into line with the Scottish and Welsh equivalents.
I shall not be recommending any changes to the membership of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which will remain as now—that is, all Northern Ireland Members, plus up to 25 others. Nor am I proposing a set number of meetings. I shall, however, be recommending

that the quorum be reduced from 14 to 10. That last point is to bring the Northern Ireland Grand Committee more into line with the Welsh and Scottish equivalents.
The changes that we are proposing are entirely without prejudice to any developments that there may be in the multi-party negotiations or to the future relationship between any new political institutions in Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament. Of course, in the event of future devolution of functions to local representatives, there will be a corresponding diminution in the role of the Grand Committee.
The changes will self-evidently enable the Grand Committee to examine Government policy in greater detail. That is a good thing. They will valuably allow members of the Committee to bring to bear their own detailed and local knowledge of Northern Ireland matters. The measures will significantly improve the accountability of government under the circumstances of direct rule. They will provide new opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Government's policy and performance in Northern Ireland. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Northern Ireland Grand Committee, as it is now known, was set up in 1975 following the establishment of direct rule and the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The Secretary of State has outlined the Committee's history since then.
Direct rule is without doubt an imperfect and unsatisfactory situation. Legislation for Northern Ireland is largely enacted by Orders in Council, which cannot be amended and are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. There was a 50 per cent. increase in the number of such orders between 1994 and 1996. The system of direct rule is the status quo. On basic principles of democracy and accountability, that is not acceptable.
As I have said many times, change is necessary. There are two basic routes for change—one is by direct Government action and the other is by local consent and agreement. Achieving local consent and agreement is the task of the two Governments and the parties in the talks. Those talks are designed to address relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and between Britain and Ireland.
Progress since last June has been slow and immensely frustrating at times, but we should not underestimate what has been achieved by agreement on independent international chairs, on rules of procedure and on the agenda for the talks. There is something to build on when talks resume.
In our view, a way forward on decommissioning has to be found on the basis of the Mitchell report. We hope that all parties will use the time between now and 3 June to develop their thinking on this and offer ways forward out of the current blockage. If we are elected, we shall immediately invite the parties at the talks to discuss the matter with us on a bilateral basis. We want to see a fully inclusive talks process, but if the talks are to succeed, everyone must be fully committed to the democratic process and to peaceful methods. Sinn Fein and the IRA can demonstrate that commitment by calling an unequivocal ceasefire and showing by their actions that they mean it. They should do so immediately. If they do not, we shall go forward in the talks without them.
In government, we shall put all our energies into the process that I have outlined—both within and outside the talks—in working to build confidence between the communities to create fertile ground for compromise and agreement. Trust and confidence between the parties and the communities that they represent must grow to enable real progress to be made.
Direct government action to improve accountability and transparency in Northern Ireland should be sets within the context of greater confidence building. We want to find the best ways to help include local people in debating issues, in holding government to account and in taking part in the decision-making process. The lack of local input into decision making in Northern Ireland is a problem for both communities.
We understand the desire for changes to the Grand Committee. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that they are proposed without prejudice to developments in the talks. We would also welcome his assurance that, while he is proposing to enable the Grand Committee to debate legislation on a Government order, the decision making—any votes on that legislation—will continue to be taken on the Floor of the House. Extending the use of the Grand Committee would create more opportunities for debate, as has the establishment of the Northern Ireland forum.
If Labour is successful in the forthcoming election, we shall immediately begin to examine how those mechanisms work alongside others in improving openness and democratic accountability across the board in Northern Ireland. Although we shall ensure that this legislation passes through the House today, we reserve the right to look again at the proposals after the election in that broader context. We understand why there is support for the measure, but the proposals have been drawn up in haste in the dying days of a Parliament, and, given the importance of this issue to both communities in Northern Ireland, it would be irresponsible of us not to give a commitment to look at them afresh when a new Parliament begins.

8 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Opposition spokesperson, that direct rule is totally unsatisfactory. Those of us who have been in the House for many years will agree that it is unsatisfactory to Northern Ireland Members that we are able to table amendments to proposed legislation for England, Scotland and Wales but are unable to table amendments to measures that relate to our constituencies in Northern Ireland. It is unsatisfactory that we have only an hour and a half—tonight's timetable is not unique to Northern Ireland Members—to deal with the most complicated and heavy orders.
A few months ago, a licensing order came before the House. Indeed, two orders were brought before the House on the same night. Hundreds of pages of detailed legislation were pushed through in an hour and a half. That is a totally unsatisfactory way to conduct business. Therefore, the ability of a Grand Committee to consider detailed and weighty matters and for us to have the opportunity at least to make our arguments to the Government about legislation must be welcomed.
Anything that makes a Government more accountable for their actions is an improvement, but I would not like to leave the House with the impression that a Grand Committee will be a panacea in terms of the restoration of democracy in Northern Ireland. It is right that Northern Ireland should have such a Committee, not just because Scotland and Wales do, but because we have a better case than Scotland and Wales because of the deficit in local government democracy in Northern Ireland and the few powers that exist for local authorities there.
The hon. Lady referred to the Labour party's manifesto position on Northern Ireland. That requires a response. According to Labour, the issue of decommissioning is holding back the talks process. In a sense that is true, but there is something much more fundamentally flawed about the present talks process, because it is designed to bring into the democratic process those who have not yet accepted the principles of the democratic process; those who would bypass the principles of democracy, even those enshrined in the international report. The issue of decommissioning is central to that, because it is the desire of some parties—the Social Democratic and Labour party being one—that people should have entrance to the talks process and still hold on to their weapons while they sit around the negotiating table.
My party has made its position clear. We accept the Mitchell principles but we do not accept the Mitchell report. The Labour party says that it does. It should reconsider, because the report is based upon a faulty premise. The Mitchell team felt and believed—no doubt those in it were convinced by the Government and others—that there was a permanent cessation of violence on the part of the Provisional IRA. In the belief that there was a permanent cessation of violence, the Mitchell team made the proposals that are contained in the report.
We all know—some of us knew at the time, but others will understand by now—that it was a phoney cessation of violence, a tactical cessation, a manoeuvre by the Provisional IRA in an attempt to extract concessions. Therefore, it would be very dangerous if any Government attempted to accept principles enshrined in an international body's report which made a judgment based on proven false principles. The Labour party would do well to go back to the drawing board before it simply picks up an international body's report that was based on an incorrect judgment of what the IRA's position was.
I hope that it was not a slip of the tongue by the Labour spokesperson, but I noted that she said that Labour would require an unequivocal ceasefire before the IRA could enter the talks process. I am looking to see whether I get a shake or nod of the head from her, but Hansard will show that that was the terminology that she used. I am delighted at that. That, of course, is different from the present Government's position. The Government's position and the position in the ground rules document is that they require an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.
There is a clear distinction between those two positions. The Government want an unequivocal restoration of a failed, phoney ceasefire. I am glad that the Government who we may have after 1 May are now saying that we want not an unequivocal restoration of a failed ceasefire but an unequivocal ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire, a complete ceasefire, a universal ceasefire, one that is totally unequivocal. I hope that the Labour party will see the distinction between those two statements. It will, of


course, require from the hon. Lady a change in legislation, because the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 refers to command 3232 which enshrines the principle of an unequivocal restoration—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I assumed that he was making a broad introduction to the subject, but we are debating the Grand Committee. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to a later order.

Mr. Robinson: No; I was speaking in response to the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson. I had assumed that, as she was considered to be in order, I would be in order to respond to her. If she has led me astray, I will come back to the straight and narrow path.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I try to be tolerant if something is mentioned briefly in passing, but it is less easy to be tolerant when it is expanded on at some length.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the message has been left with the Labour party. I trust that we shall see the necessary legislative change for the entry conditions of parties to the talks process.
In relation to the Grand Committee, I am somewhat concerned that the Labour party suggests that the motion will not close the issue, that Labour will revisit it. It almost sounded as though it would be part of some negotiation after the election, and that Labour would then suggest that the proposals would change unless various principles that Labour may lay down were accepted by the parties. I hope that, at the end of the debate, we shall have a clearer statement from the Labour party that it will accept the judgment of the House tonight in relation to the Grand Committee and that it will not seek to change the decision of the House if Labour is elected in May.
I have no argument with the Secretary of State about the various functions that he gives the Grand Committee, save that, in his communication of 27 February to party leaders, he said that, in addition to the initial functions that he considered for the Grand Committee, he was to include the power that it should be possible on a Government motion for a draft Northern Ireland Order or for an Order in Council itself to be referred to the Grand Committee instead of going to a Standing Committee or being taken on the Floor of the House.
I am concerned that that could allow a Government to put all Northern Ireland orders into a Grand Committee and that they would never be considered on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an assurance that that is not the position, but his communication of 27 February certainly makes it clear that consideration in a Grand Committee would be instead of consideration on the Floor of the House. It would not be helpful to Northern Ireland for the business of Northern Ireland to be shunted into a siding. We should have time to raise on the Floor of the House matters of importance to the people of Northern Ireland.
It is sad that members of the Grand Committee for Northern Ireland who represent Northern Ireland will be a minority. That is not the position on the Scottish Grand Committee. If one wanders into that Committee, one will not see a majority of Englishmen and women—the same

applies to the Welsh Grand Committee—but the poor Ulster people will be in the minority on the Grand Committee for Northern Ireland. The Government have deliberately designed it so that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are in a minority on the Grand Committee. That is a mistake, and shows that the Government are not prepared to leave the field open for the views of the people of Northern Ireland to be expressed.
I noticed that, in the debate on the Scottish Grand Committee and the proposals for constitutional change in Scotland, the Labour party's view was that the Committee would be much like a travelling circus, a toothless talking shop and a platform for Ministers, who would use it to launch various proposals up and down the country.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is precisely how the Secretary of State for Scotland has exploited the Scottish Grand Committee for his own purposes. It was a travelling press show for him and his fellow Ministers.

Mr. Robinson: The great difficulty is that it would be hard, even for the Labour party if it were in the same position as the Secretary of State for Scotland, to resist the temptation to use the Grand Committee as a platform. If a Grand Committee is to mean anything, it is to get the views of Back Benchers as well as the Government on various issues. If allocations of time allow it to be hogged by the Secretary of State and his Ministers instead of allowing the views of representatives of the area to be heard, it will not assist us one bit.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did not advocate a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland using the same arguments as were advanced for Scotland. In the document containing proposals on a Scottish Grand Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The Government stand four-square behind the Union".
I did not hear the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland using such terminology. He went on to say:
What the people of Scotland want is Government close to them, Government listening to them, and above all, Government accountable to them.
The Secretary of State cannot say that, because the Government are totally unaccountable in Northern Ireland. There is no representation in Northern Ireland by the Conservative party, nor will there be any by the Labour party.
The Secretary of State has let down the people of Northern Ireland. He could have said that this proposal was to strengthen the Union, but he chose not to say that. He did not follow the line of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps the people of Scotland are more loved by the Government than the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps we are children of a lesser god in the eyes of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He does not use the same arguments in relation to the Province.
I am sure that we all wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well in his new life as he leaves the House and parts from us. He had this opportunity, which is probably the last time that he will deal with Northern Ireland business, to set out clearly his views, and the views of the Government, on maintaining the Union with Northern Ireland, and to say that he saw a Grand


Committee as part of that scheme. Unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland, he chose not to do that. I wonder whether the Government do not believe the argument that they advanced for Scotland, or whether they do not want the Union to be maintained in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the legislation. I shall try to stick closely to the terms of the order, because I began to wonder whether some folk had been given the wrong speech, as they were dealing with later orders. I welcome the proposal, because it has taken a long time coming. The process began when Lord Glenamara was responsible for these matters in the House. It is fascinating to discover that it has taken all these years to come to fruition.
I thought that there was perhaps a problem of gestation and that we were trying to outdo the elephant, which is the land mammal with the longest gestation period. I was advised today that the blue whale is the water mammal with the longest gestation period, so perhaps we have been at sea for a long time about Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State spoke about diversity when he referred to the Grand Committee. In a sense, British politics is all about diversity, as we come together to argue, debate, try to understand and reach conclusions. I welcome the fact that we have travelled along this road, as the Secretary of State outlined in his introduction. It has taken many years to reach this stage.
The Secretary of State apologised for the absence of the Leader of the House. I want to express my thanks to the Leader of the House, who, in the past few months, has been assiduous in seeking to make progress towards this hour. He has been considerate and helpful. We now discover that others have begun to recognise that the Grand Committee has a role to play in making up part of the democratic deficit.
I say bluntly that the Grand Committee should not be viewed merely as a means of making up the democratic deficit or plugging a gap until an understanding is reached whereby the people of Northern Ireland will have a greater say in matters affecting their everyday lives. In my judgment, there will always be a time when a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland is needed to deal with issues that will never be devolved to Northern Ireland.
I am convinced that a large number of the problems that arose in 1968 would never have arisen if more people in the House had been aware of the overall situation there. We should bear it in mind that the Foreign Office represents Northern Ireland abroad, as it does the rest of the United Kingdom. Defence issues will not be devolved to a Northern Ireland Assembly. There may be moments when it will be important for the Grand Committee to bring Ministers of the Crown before it to deal with issues relevant to Northern Ireland. So it will not be merely a stop-gap, and I welcome that.
Some people have opposed the establishment of a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland. Some have argued for parity of esteem in Northern Ireland. We welcome the fact that we have moved in the positive direction of parity of esteem between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There is another reason why I believe that such action is necessary. Those who remember the debates on broadcasting that have taken place here will remember my raising the problem of regional broadcasting. We were given to understand then that the regions would report to the regions what Members representing those regions were doing in the House, but that has not been done to any great effect in Northern Ireland. Indeed, many Northern Ireland newspapers concentrate on local disagreements and squabbles, rather than reporting the positive contributions that have been made here for the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. The fact that a Grand Committee can meet in Northern Ireland from time to time is a positive development.
I was interested to note that the main daily paper in Northern Ireland prefaced a report about the tabling of the legislation with a headline referring to "plans for a mini-Westminster to meet in Northern Ireland". I know that others have debated other issues, but, given that tonight we are debating the main theme of the motion, I welcome it and trust that it will be implemented in the near future.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: When the Secretary of State introduced the motion, he invited us to approve it on a number of grounds. Let me paraphrase what he said. He wished to address the democratic deficit, and he wished to approve the participation of Northern Ireland politicians and representatives in the decision-making process. Those are laudable sentiments, and it is hard to argue against them—except when they are placed against the practicality of what has happened, and is happening.
It is difficult to conceive of a conversion to the body that we discussing. This is the last gasp of a Government who have exercised a system for more than 18 years, and who have made this move only in the dying moments of what is probably their last Parliament. So much for the concern that they have expressed.
It was suggested that we should approve the motion because it would involve Northern Ireland politicians much more than heretofore. That is true; but Northern Ireland politicians have been involved in many serious policy matters, and have addressed those matters, not just individually but jointly—and, on almost every occasion, their unanimity has been rejected by the Government. So much for addressing the democratic deficit. We have seen that over the years, and particularly in recent years, when our health and social services system has been attacked by Tory party policy, and when our education system has been attacked. As often as not, when parties throughout the community asked for change, they were ignored. Unfortunately, therefore, I do not accept the Government's deathbed conversion to the principle of addressing the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.
Let me digress for a moment. It has been said that the democratic deficit can be observed in local government. Why? Because of the abuse of powers, which, to some extent, is still going on. It is not as bad as it was, because there is much cross-party, cross-community co-operation, based primarily on the principles established by the SDLP—which we called power sharing in 1972, all of 25 years ago. Although that theory of partnership was rejected out of hand as being impractical, it has permeated much of local government—although there are notable exceptions.
So we have had 18 years during which the democratic deficit could be addressed. Let me speak bluntly. The announcement at the Tory party conference on 11 October that Northern Ireland was to be given a Grand Committee was seen by the nationalist community as just another sop or pay-off to the Ulster Unionists for helping the Government in the House. It was as simple as that, and that perception remains today. It may be argued that the perception is wrong, but it is there.
The point has been emphasised time and again in connection with other matters over the past 12 months, in particular. That was the perception back in 1994, when the Select Committee was established. Early in 1996, elections were held under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996: they were not really necessary for the negotiations, but were held at the behest of, primarily, the Unionist parties. On each of those occasions, the nationalist community saw its parity being destroyed or, at the minimum, held in much less esteem than that of the Unionists.
The same theme has continued throughout the present Administration, for many years. One of the main reasons why my party objects to the Grand Committee—in addition to what I have already said—is that it was always acknowledged that the real solution to the problem of Northern Ireland was representatives of the two communities getting together and arriving at a means whereby Northern Ireland could be best administered. Every time a little piece is taken out of that jigsaw, the need to reach such a compromise is weakened.

Dr. Godman: Is there not an inconsistency in the Government's conduct in regard to the democratic deficit? The Prime Minister promised us in Scotland a stock taking exercise concerning the governance of Scotland— and what have we finished up with? The Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. McGrady: No doubt the same will be reflected in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, when it is established. We see the Grand Committee as another degradation of the parity of esteem—the esteem in which nationalists were supposed to be held by both Governments.
I should also like to know whether consultations took place on the international scene under national agreements, on whether the Grand Committee should be part of the administration of Northern Ireland. We see this as anti-nationalist legislation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this sovereign Parliament, dealing with one of its regions in setting up a Committee with parity with those of Wales and Scotland, should discuss the matter with the southern Ireland Government, and that that Government's OK should be given before this Government can set up the Committee?

Mr. McGrady: I am not saying that that Government must be consulted to the point at which their agreement must be obtained. I am saying that, if there is to be agreement between the two Governments, the Dublin Government must be consulted. I do not know whether they were consulted and what their opinion was; perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us whether consultations took place under the international agreement, and what the consequences were if they did.
As I have said, we see this as a degradation of the vitality that must be preserved in the inter-party talks. If everything is already agreed to, there is no push, no initiative and no drive to reach an arrangement with opposite political numbers. That is what we have been trying to do in the 25 years since the establishment of direct rule. It is for those reasons that my party has been against the formation of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and has consistently stated that that is our position. It remains so tonight.
Before I sit down, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say to the Secretary of State that, despite what I have said in terms of his propositions, personally, we wish him all the best on his retirement. I have no doubt that his very many talents will be put to good use in some other place. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in the general thrust of his argument, but I too would like to join him in paying my compliment to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his efforts in Northern Ireland. Certainly he started off with very high hopes and, with the Prime Minister, achieved a great deal in the Downing street declaration and in the framework document. It is sad that those matters have not come to earlier and quicker fruition. We can perhaps argue about the reasons for that on other occasions, but it is right that the Secretary of State's efforts should be acknowledged. He must to a certain degree feel disappointment that so many of those high hopes have not been realised, as he would have hoped.
One of the reasons for that is the matter that we are debating today. We have seen the last cheque being cashed for keeping a discredited and faltering Government in power in the past two or three years. The votes of the Ulster Unionists have been purchased. We have seen that happening, first, with the Maastricht debate and, immediately after that, with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. We saw it in the altering of the legislation so that we had fewer orders for Northern Ireland and more British legislation covering the rest of Northern Ireland—that was another demand.
We saw it in the establishment and acceptance of the Unionist agenda. The price that had to be paid for getting Unionists into talks was the mini-general election in Northern Ireland for the establishment of the forum for the establishment of the talks. That again was their price, and it kept a faltering, staggering Government in operation. However, it achieved on the other side a continuous feeling that its interests were being downgraded. There was no parity of esteem on the Select Committee, on the legislation and on the negotiations for entry into talks. All those things were done against the express wishes of the minority party in Northern Ireland. If that is true, we have to be very suspicious about what has been happening today.

Sir James Molyneaux: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he would want to include in his condemnation of the present Government, condemnation of the Wilson Government and particularly the then Leader of the House, Ted Short, who took the initial steps in forming the Northern Ireland


Committee. That progressed to the later stage of the Grand Committee and to the final third stage tonight under another Government. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would want to record, because I know that he is basically a fair man, his condemnation of the Callaghan Government, which he supported, in granting Northern Ireland free and equal representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I think fair dos for all three Governments.

Mr. McNamara: I am quite happy to say that I did disagree with my then right hon. Friend, Lord Callaghan. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, because he was in the House at the time, that I voted against the extra seats—the price that was demanded of the then Prime Minister Callaghan to keep him in power. I remember that I warned him. I said that, as long as he paid the Danegeld, he would never get rid of the Dane. When hon. Members did not get their gas pipeline, they brought Callaghan down. I remember that that was the majority of their votes, so this is nothing fresh to me. I know where the Ulster Unionists stand and where they are coming from.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. McNamara: Sit down for a moment.
I thought that it was a little disingenuous of the Secretary of State to say that this matter in no way prejudices the three-stranded talks and that those talks will continue onwards. That is completely incorrect. This is a complete alteration of the playing field in relation to strand 1 of the talks, which deal with internal relations in Northern Ireland. It creates a situation where there are no pressures in any way on the majority parties in Northern Ireland to come to any agreement. They were able to spin out the Brooke talks. They spun out the Maple talks and the Mitchell talks. They did it very cleverly from their point of view; I understand that.

Sir James Molyneaux: We were expert.

Mr. McNamara: As the right hon. Gentleman says, they were expert, and no one was more expert than him, whether it was the size of the table, where we met, what the agenda would be, or whether we would sit down under the leader of a foreign Government. It went on and on. The talks were spun out, as they have continued to be. When the majority parties got into difficulties, bingo, out of the air, they produced decommissioning, so we understand their tactics and the way in which they have dealt with it. That is why this is a bad idea. The pressures for getting a settlement in Northern Ireland are reduced that much by this proposal.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I will give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way because I know that he does believe in the

facts and the element of truth, which is on the record, and that he would not want to mislead the House. Does he agree that, when on their last legs, the Callaghan Government were supported by two Ulster Unionists, who fondly believed that they might have got a gas pipeline, but it was his colleague, the former hon. Member for Belfast, West, now Lord Fitt, and the absentee who came to abstain in person, Frank Maguire, the then hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who brought down the Government?

Mr. McNamara: If the majority of the Ulster Unionists, who had been so obsequious to Callaghan while they were getting their extra seats and their other stuff, had voted with the Labour Government, they would not have been brought down.
We also knew how my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had treated Mr. Maguire and Mr. Fitt. We also knew what was going on in Castlereagh and in the Bennett inquiry. We knew how we had used those people, with the Liberals, to maintain the Government. Then, when the Liberals left us, they were discarded like an old pair of gloves in favour of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and his friends.
We know exactly what went on then. That is why we are saying that the present development represents a weakening of the position.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is becoming something of a revisionist. May I take him back to his earlier comments, when he said, gesticulating to give greater effect to his words, that the Unionists grasped the issue of decommissioning out of the air. Would he like to reflect on that comment, given the fact that the Unionists were required not simply by necessity but by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Dublin Prime Minister, who said that the issue had to be addressed at the start of the process? Under the instructions of his friend the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, as well as those of our own Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Unionists were required to do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House that we should not get into a debate about decommissioning. We are talking about the Northern Ireland Committee.

Mr. McNamara: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely point out that when all the discussions were taking place about ceasefires and so on, decommissioning was not raised by anyone—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Oh yes, it was; ask Mr. Spring.

Mr. McNamara: Oh no, it was not. That was not quite the case.
I shall finish on the following point. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who will soon be the Secretary of State, was correct to say that all matters involving forums, Grand Committees and so on will have to be considered again. It is absolutely wrong that a great constitutional principle such as we are now establishing should be dealt with on the penultimate day of a


Parliament, without proper consultation or examination, and without considering all the ramifications of what is being done.
The Government are paying their debt. I understand that—but one thing is more important. In a few weeks' time the British people will pay their debt to the Government, and we will not see much more of that Government.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have listened to a most interesting speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In one amazing part of it he said that we were subjecting the Northern Ireland people to British legislation. I happen to be part of the United Kingdom, and this is the United Kingdom Parliament.
We do not want Irish republican legislation. We do not want anyone interfering in Northern Ireland's internal affairs. We want to be ruled by this Parliament, which is constituted to rule us. It is utter nonsense for any Member of the House to say that it is a sort of disgrace that British legislation techniques are being brought in to rule us. That sort of speech, instead of forwarding good relations, puts them back and back.

Mr. McNamara: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman wants to be ruled by British legislation; I simply remember how splendidly he performed at the time of the Ulster Workers Council strike.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All citizens of this kingdom have a right to protest against laws they do not agree with. If they are wrong, the law can take its course. It has taken its course with me on three occasions, when they locked me behind bars, to the hon. Gentleman's delight— [Interruption.] Yes, to his delight and celebration. I remember some of the things he said at the time.
Let me make it clear to the House that Ulster— Northern Ireland—is part of the United Kingdom, and that this is the United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made it clear—or perhaps it was his friend across the Gangway, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—that the southern Government should be consulted about what we are doing tonight.
What are we doing tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I do not want to make you restless, so I emphasise the fact that we are dealing with House business—the business of Committees in the British House of Commons for this United Kingdom of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the concern of no one but the House.
The House alone can appoint its Committees, and it is outrageous for Members of that House to suggest that a foreign Government should now be able to put their hand into the Chamber and dictate to it whether we should appoint a Committee to look after the business of citizens of the United Kingdom. Would we have liked France telling us that we could not have a Grand Committee for Scotland, because France and Scotland were always very close? Are we saying that Spain should look after Welsh people and should decide whether we have a Welsh Grand Committee? This matter goes to the very heart of our situation. People say that we antagonise one part of the

population of Northern Ireland if this Parliament does its duty, but this Parliament has not been doing its duty with regard to Northern Ireland for years. Would we be talking about a democratic deficit if we had been doing our duty?
The people of Northern Ireland have no real authority in local government, planning, education, health and social services and the bread and butter issues. The Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland told us that he was going to abolish the five education boards, but when we all went to see the Prime Minister, he put up his hands and surrendered. He said the Government would not do away with the boards—that is on the record. I said that it was a good thing for a Prime Minister to surrender to a Unionist, while the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that it was a bad thing. Is that the way Northern Ireland is to be ruled?
Is it good government when the Minister responsible for education goes against everybody? He thought that because the Social Democratic and Labour party was not in the forum, it would not associate with us on this issue, but there are schools in the areas represented by the SDLP, and it knew what was happening. There was unity. That controversy did damage, and we do not know to this day how much was spent in all the Minister's investigations into trying to introduce a three-board rule, which has something to do with Drumcree, and nothing to do with anything else.
We have not had good government in Northern Ireland because this House has not been acting in the way it should. We had the same controversy about the number of seats in this House when we had 12 seats. I heard the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) say that we had a fair proportion, but we have nothing of the kind. In proportion to the population and size of Scotland, according to the Library we should have 22 seats, but we received only 17. We were undersold by the British Government, who would not give us our entitlement. Some say that the Government are now paying us off, but it is a poor pay-off.
Elements of the Committee in Northern Ireland will be entirely different from the Scottish Grand Committee. In a document we presented many years ago to the Prime Minister—some Ulster Unionists rapped us for it—we said that we should have a proper Grand Committee and Select Committee to look after the business of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Down is making it up, but in the appointment of the members of a Select Committee, how did the nationalist population not receive parity of esteem? It received the same number of members, in proportion, as other parties. It was entitled to only one member of that Committee, and it got one member. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard reports, he will see that he referred to parity of esteem on the Select Committee.
Let me make clear that anything this House does to give us the government to which we are entitled as part of the United Kingdom will be opposed by nationalists— that can be expected. Everything is considered as some sort of a pay-off. It is a pity that this Parliament did not listen to representatives from Northern Ireland years ago, and set up a Grand Committee and a Select Committee. At least then we would not have had that faux pas over the five boards; at least we would have been getting somewhere with the good government of Northern Ireland.
The Labour party spokesman briefly mentioned decommissioning. The talks could have covered decommissioning, but by a vote of this Government, the southern Government and the Social Democratic and Labour party, we were not allowed to discuss that matter or vote on it, so do not blame the Unionists for that.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North who used to sit on the Labour Front Bench but has gone backwards and higher, tells us that we stopped the Brooke talks and the second part of the talks. We did nothing of the kind. The Irish Government brought them to a halt by calling an Anglo-Irish meeting, having agreed that there would be no Anglo-Irish conferences during the talks. On two occasions, the Irish Government called such meetings—and now we are blamed in this House for stopping the talks. Why does that man not go to Dublin and blame those who did stop the talks? We will be blamed for everything. The framework document is on the table and is the policy of the two Governments. Their agenda is a united Ireland—at the talks. Are we expected, as Unionists, to go there, bow the knee to them, and say yes?
I do not know what the policy of the next Government will be. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that she is looking forward to an unequivocal ceasefire. So am I, because we did not have one. We had a farce. Look at the people who were crucified, who were beaten up, who were shot and who were destroyed, and it is all coming back again. A ceasefire ought to be a ceasefire.
We do not want the restoration of the unequivocal ceasefire of the past, for it was not unequivocal. We want an unequivocal ceasefire, so that all the belligerence stops and does so in such a way that we know that it has stopped. How does it stop in such a way? When the weapons that can break the peace are surrendered.
One can have Sinn Fein at the table, and I believe that it will declare a ceasefire—it is coming and I think that the Labour Government will accept it. Perhaps before the end of May, they will say that Sinn Fein will be at the table.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the Grand Committee. It would help our procedures if he could get back to the matter in question.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In closing my remarks on that subject, I simply state that my party will not be at any such talks. Let me make it clear to the House and to the world; we will not be sitting down with those who have guns in their hands and are committing crime in the Province.
We are going to have this Grand Committee, and I wonder why it is not in the pattern of the other two Grand Committees for other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to know why a majority of Ulster Members cannot be on the Committee. Will the Whips whip their parties to reject what the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the SDLP and other representatives of Northern Ireland agree on together? The Whips will always have the power to destroy any agreement that the Committee arrives at.
The Grand Committee should be representative. I do not look forward to the Secretary of State presiding in Belfast and making it a press conference, as has happened

in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said—even if it is the hon. Member for Redcar. It is interesting that the proposed 20-minute rule—20 minutes for the Government and 20 minutes for the other leaders—has been forgotten, so that Government members of the Committee can go on and on and then have their press conference afterwards. [Interruption.]
This is the last night of debate on Northern Ireland, and at five minutes to 9 the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) wants to shut us up. Is that what he will do when he comes to Northern Ireland? The Northern Ireland people will teach him a lesson. We need to have our say; we sat here all day, and the business did not proceed according to the Order Paper; other hon. Members went on and on, yet when I speak for 10 minutes I am effectively asked to sit down. I will not be put down.
All I want to say at the end of this debate—we have two others coming—is that it is a pity that the House did not frame the Committee as the other Grand Committees were framed; at least then we would have had a chance to make it work better for the people of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, as it will be a Committee of the House, Northern Ireland Members will do their best to get the best out of it for the people we represent.
My deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), offered the Secretary of State good wishes for the life that he was going to. I do not know whether he was proposing a life in time or a life in eternity, but I remember an old Scottish minister who never wished his congregation a happy new year, but always a happy eternity. I wish the present Secretary of State a happy eternity.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State made great play of the word "equivalent" in his opening statement, comparing the Scottish Grand Committee with the proposed rules for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. His equivalence did not stretch to the Tory party conference last year, when the Secretary of State for Scotland had the St. Andrew's flag on the stage and joined hands with the Secretary of State for Wales with the Welsh flag, and a glaring absentee was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I can see where the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is coming from when he challenges the Secretary of State's Unionism.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made the point, rightly I think, that many people, if not the majority, will regard the Northern Ireland Grand Committee as a good debating forum for people debating issues in Northern Ireland, because we all know that Northern Ireland affairs are not given enough time on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the equivalent Scottish Grand Committee. He was absolutely right about how that Committee has been abused. The Secretary of State for Scotland said at the time of that Committee's inception that there would be plenty of time for Back Benchers to have their say, but we have ended up with a situation in which the Secretary of State and other Ministers at the Scottish Office hog the time. We came to an agreement that there would be 20 minutes for the Front Benches,


but at the most recent meeting the Secretary of State blatantly ignored it, despite my repeated request that he honour the convention.
Northern Ireland Members should be careful: if by some fluke the Conservatives win the general election, they could use and abuse the Northern Ireland Grand Committee as they have abused the Scottish Grand Committee. If we win the election, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will never be guilty of such an abuse.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that qualification. Does he accept that Northern Ireland Members might not be prepared to accept the Secretary of State behaving like that? They have already shown that they can handle themselves as a minority group in the House.

Mr. McAvoy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Scottish Members are not exactly the most docile, either. I assure him that it is difficult to follow the rules of the House. The Scottish Grand Committee has had the rolling travelling show of press conferences and stunt spending announcements by the Scottish Office. Those would have happened anyway, but they were packaged for announcement in the Committee. Northern Ireland Members should not expect too much from the changed Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It will have powers not of decision, but only of dealing with Adjournment votes.
It is disgraceful that, at the tail end of this Parliament, rushed proposals have been put before the House. My hon. Friends the Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about a Unionist pay-off. I would not use such language, but our Unionist colleagues should take account of the fact that, thanks to the cack-handedness of the Government, there is a perception that deals have been made.
I support the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who said that Labour will reconsider the proposals. The hon. Member for Belfast, East declared that tonight's decision should be game, set and match and that nothing should be re-examined. I do not agree. It is reasonable to look at Northern Ireland from a fresh Labour Government point of view and see how the Committee would be set in place with other arrangements. There is a place for the Committee, which can be a good debating chamber if it is used properly. If the Conservatives get in again, that will not happen.
I welcome the proposal to re-examine the workings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I assure all Northern Ireland Members that the Labour party will approach it with the benefit of our experience in the Scottish Grand Committee. When Northern Ireland Members say that they would not allow it to be abused, I assure them that Scottish Labour Members would not stand for any abuse either. However, I certainly do not expect any abuse from my hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There is one thing about which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and it may be the only thing: it is wrong to introduce this measure at the end of 18 years of Conservative

government. However, it is wrong because it should have been introduced long ago. The democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is the big argument for the measure.
In the last Parliament, we had a three-hour Order in Council debate on the equivalent for Northern Ireland of the Education Reform Act 1988. It had 187 clauses and schedules and had to be debated in 180 minutes. It was not a repeat of the legislation for Britain because education in Northern Ireland differs in some characteristics from education in Britain. In the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, it should have had the fullest possible discussion. That democratic deficit is the reason for a Grand Committee, irrespective of arguments about the details.
There are bad arguments and bad reasons for establishing such bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North pushed the negative aspects and suggested why it was in some people's interest to put them forward. However, the democratic argument gives good, strong and solid reasons for adopting the measure. Everyone who votes for the measure will not vote for a good and solid reason. People will have their own agenda, their own position and their own interests. However, as democrats we should be concerned to establish the right type of arrangements.
The Government's failure to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee was rectified only recently. It seems to me that a Select Committee should be attached to each Department of state. It was disgraceful that there was no Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The Select Committee is separate from considerations about talks, the future of Northern Ireland and constitutional change. It deals with the current position and bread-and-butter policy issues for the people of Northern Ireland. All the bodies that have been established in connection with Northern Ireland should operate.
The Northern Ireland Select Committee deals not with constitutional matters, security or wider matters but with social and economic affairs. Although alterations could be made in its operation, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee should continue to sit. The Northern Ireland forum has passed resolutions that I see as progressive, but to which Ulster Unionists on both sides of the House have not always adhered in debates in the Chamber. The forum has passed grand resolutions on setting up a commission on disability, water privatisation and other matters. I only wish that the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein would involve themselves in discussions in the forum, so that their influence could come out.
Then there is another body. The British-Irish parliamentary body deals with a host of bread-and-butter issues. It produces reports. It does not interfere with the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom. The separate Administrations have to decide how to respond to its proposals. It is a valuable body; it allows the sharing of ideas and helps developments to take place. Unfortunately, there are vacancies for Unionists on the parliamentary body. Unionists should be involved in that body, as the nationalist and Republican community should be involved in the Northern Ireland forum.
The Select Committee, the Grand Committee, the forum and the British-Irish parliamentary body provide valuable cross-fertilisation of ideas. To say that they are just talking shops does not decry their position. What is required is discussion of matters of daily concern in


people's lives and the sharing of experiences. People find sometimes that they have far more in common than things that come between them.
I have been impressed in the House by how often, on Northern Ireland issues in the Grand Committee and elsewhere, the divisions on constitutional and security issues just disappear and there is considerable cross-party unity. For example, in the debates on student loans, speeches were made by Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House which set out a position that could almost have been Labour's position. The same position ran across the political spectrum within Northern Ireland on that issue.
The opportunity for people to meet and discuss matters and for some to hop from one body to another, carry their own ideas across and influence matters, and to learn from the procedures of those bodies is invaluable. I am not against our looking again at the arrangements, but I am against our destroying the principles of the bodies that have been established unless something entirely different comes out of the talks which could then lead to an adjustment and a different framework.

Ms Mowlam: With the leave of the House, I shall wind up for the Opposition very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made his usual clear and positive contribution to the debate, and I reinforce his remarks about the British-Irish body, which is something at which we will want to look in future. His comments were constructive and were made in the face of some of this evening's more interesting contributions.
I also wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the history of local government in Northern Ireland, which is a terribly important subject. We must never forget the sectarianism that functioned at local government level in the past and that persists in some areas. Equally, it would be helpful to acknowledge those local government bodies that have improved and in which cross-party work takes place. They represent a far more positive experience.
I also want to throw into the pot the local authority partnerships and the 26 district councils, where, with European money, work of a positive nature is being done across the divide, not only by local politicians, but by community groups, businesses and trade unions. Those experiences should not be lost. I accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman's comment that, if we take part of the jigsaw outside the talks process, we begin to weaken the talks process, but it is important to look at how we can begin to build trust and confidence in areas around the talks process in the hope of moving it forward.
The contributions from many hon. Members reinforced the view expressed by Labour Members on the need to revisit the issue of improving accountability and transparency across the board in Northern Ireland. We are intent on doing that and I hope that, to some extent, that answers the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—have reinforced our view that we should look at the history of the Scottish Grand Committee, because there may be positive lessons for a potential Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
Labour will not divide the House on this motion. We have said many times that it is important that we should let the measure through. However, we shall review it, if we are given the chance in government.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must begin a short winding-up speech by thanking those right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed kind wishes for what has been described as my after-life. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) wished me a happy eternity, which good wishes I gratefully acknowledge and reciprocate. Kind suggestions were made as to how I might employ myself; the only plan that I have made is to buy a horse, and now that there is no concern about a by-election, that will cause no anxiety to anybody.
This has been a valuable debate, and I welcome the Opposition's support for the motion. A number of general points have been made: first, that it is a good idea, but it comes at the wrong time; secondly, that it is a good idea, but the Committee is wrongly constituted; thirdly, that it is a bad idea, primarily because Unionists seem to want it, nevertheless we favour accountability; fourthly, that it is a bad idea because it is a pay-off, the last cashing of a cheque; and, fifthly, that it is a bad idea because it will prejudice the outcome of the talks. I should like briefly to deal with some—although probably not all—of those points.
In respect of the argument that it is a good idea but the wrong time, I should like to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the measure back in October. Thereafter, within a few days, I wrote to party leaders asking for their views and saying that it would be nice if we could introduce the measure with the support of everybody. It is enough to say that some were more prompt than others in responding. Nevertheless, here we are, and if it is a good idea then it is never too late to introduce it.
To the assertion that it is some sort of pay-off, I say, well, big deal—the number of times we have had the Ulster Unionists voting against us does not suggest that we have received good value for money. I hope that the House will look at the proposal on its merits and will see it for what it is intended to be—an enhancement of accountability. The first thing I said when I got to Northern Ireland, nearly five years ago, was that I wanted to get rid of direct rule. The sort of responsibilities and powers I have are absurd—absolutely ridiculous. I want locally elected people to take responsibility for some necessarily rather hard decisions.
As for the argument that the Grand Committee is a bad idea because Unionists want it, it seems an odd way of forming one's opinion to decide that, if someone else wants something, it must be bad.
I want to make a serious point about the constitution of the Committee. We have endeavoured to make it a practical Committee. If it was limited to Ulster Members only, it would be a much smaller Committee than either of the other two Grand Committees, and it is of course a part of our belief in the Union in the House that so many hon. and right hon. Members who are not Ulster Members take a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I therefore consider it reasonable that that composition should pertain.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked whether, in a letter that I wrote on 27 February, I was saying that we intended to pass all Northern Ireland


legislation through the Grand Committee. Certainly not. He will see that in that letter I said that it should also be possible on a Government motion for draft Northern Ireland orders and Orders in Council to be referred to the Grand Committee. It is simply to enhance that as a possibility that we make this proposal.
In the time available, I cannot sensibly do anything much more than to say this about an important point in conclusion. It has been said—with sincerity, I am sure— that the proposal is bad because it will take away some of the drive for that comprehensive settlement which it is the object of the talks process to help the people of Northern Ireland secure.
I see no case for that whatever. Here is something that mitigates one of the worst consequences of direct rule— what we call the democratic deficit. It is entirely without prejudice to what we are seeking to do in that talks process. The Grand Committee will not have legislative capacity; in all probability, it will be used primarily for non-controversial Bills. It will have no power to amend. It is completely different from what we are seeking to achieve in this context in the talks process.
I very much hope that, after an interesting debate, we can proceed, and that the motion will be carried. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 99 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders No. 99A to 99H below shall have effect;
(2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, by inserting 'or a motion in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business))' after the words relating to the Welsh Grand Committee which were inserted on 11th March 1996;
(3) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall be amended, in line 21, at the end, by inserting 'or to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and
(4) Other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to die foregoing provisions of this Order.

99 A. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)



(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, together with not more than twenty-five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
(2) The quorum of the committee shall be ten, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).
(3) the business of the committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order No. 99 D (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

(d) bills referred to it for consideration or further consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));
(e) such legislative proposals and other specified matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland));
(f) instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)); and
(g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).

(4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

99 B. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)



(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee by Northern Ireland Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with theOfficial Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired, save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments):

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
99 C. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)



(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Northern Ireland.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5) (a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.



(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

(6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
99 D. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements).



(1) The chairman of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Northern Ireland, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

(3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
(4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

99 E. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)



(1) On the order being read for the second reading of a public bill relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

(2) A bill so referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
(4) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (3) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(5) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (2) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown (or in the case of a private Member's bill by the Member in charge of the

bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee', and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only wim the leave of the House.

(6) A bill so referred again to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle', and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more man one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(7) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (6) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(8) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (7) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

99 F. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)



(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a legislative proposal or other specified matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the legislative proposal or matter referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said legislative proposal or matter.
(3) In this order and in Standing Orders No. 99 A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)) and No. 99 H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)) 'a legislative proposal' means a proposal for a draft Order in Council relating exclusively to Northern Ireland.

99 G. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)



(1) Where—

(a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved,


a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the instrument be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

(2) The Committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, "That the Committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the


proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put:

Provided that a Minister of the Crown may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the instrument' is made, make without notice a motion to extend to three hours the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

99 H. Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)



(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on not more than two specified days in Northern Ireland (at places to be named by the Member appointed chairman), the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at such hours as shall be specified;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order No. 99 B (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order No. 99 C (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;
(e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 E (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) on certain of the days so specified;
(f) to consider legislative proposals and other specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 F (Northern Ireland Grand

Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) on certain of the days so specified;
(g) to consider specified instruments (whether or not in draft) which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order No. 99 G (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(h) to consider motions for the adjournment of the committee made under paragraph (5) below on certain of the days so specified;


and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Northern Ireland, nor from considering at a sitting in Northern Ireland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.


(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
(3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.
(5) On a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) above, after the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

Crime (Sentences) Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Crime (Sentences) Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. I understand that copies of the Lords amendments are now available in the Vote Office.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Conditions relating to mandatory and minimum custodial sentences—

(".—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of setting out the basis on which the court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this Part.

(2) Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender.

(3) Under sections 2 and 3 below, when determing whether it would be appropriate not to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years under subsection 2(2) or, as the case may be, of at least three years under subsection 3(2) the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which—

(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and

(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to 7.

Mr. Howard: These amendments all relate to the circumstances in which the court should have discretion to set aside the mandatory sentences prescribed by clauses 2, 3 and 4. These are of course the automatic life sentence for second serious violent or sex offences, and mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers. The Bill, as passed by the House with a majority of more than 200, provided that, where the stringent qualifying conditions are satisfied, the court must impose the mandatory penalty unless it considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify not doing so.
The amendments that were carried, against the Government's advice, in another place retain the exceptional circumstances test in relation to the automatic life sentence but substitute a different test in relation to the mandatory minimum penalties in clauses 3 and 4. The new test provides that the court must impose the mandatory minimum penalty unless it considers that there are specific circumstances which relate either to the offences or to the offender, and which will make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.
I, my noble Friend Lady Blatch and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), have explained the Government's view on this matter many times during the Bill's passage. We accept that there may be exceptional cases for which a mandatory penalty would be unjust or inappropriate, and that the court needs to have discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in such cases.
At the same time, the whole purpose and point of mandatory minimum sentences is to ensure that persistent burglars and drug dealers know that they can expect a stiff minimum penalty if they continue to offend. Mandatory penalties would have the salutary effect that we expect and intend them to have only if offenders knew that they would be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases.
This will not now happen. The Lords amendments drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill that deal with burglars and drug dealers.
In Committee, Plaid Cymru, supported by the Liberal Democrats, proposed a very similar amendment—but the Labour party abstained. The moment the Bill left the spotlight and went to another place, however, Labour did a U-turn. Its spokesman in the other House proposed this amendment himself. Opposition Members sometimes pretend that these are minor amendments, designed to clarify, which will have little effect. Not so. Indeed, the Master of the Rolls has said, of a form of words which was virtually identical:
We shall be back to the present position".
He is right. There would seem to be a difference of opinion about that between the two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) appears to be nodding in agreement with the Master of the Rolls; the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) shakes his head in disagreement. On this occasion the Master of the Rolls is undoubtedly right—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill will still contain mandatory sentences, and that the courts will have to go through a quite different sentencing exercise in order to reach a sentence that is not of the mandatory period? Does he therefore agree that the Master of the Rolls was somewhat overstating the case when he said that we will return to the present position?

Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that a different process would have to be undergone in order to reach, in the Master of the Rolls' words, "the present position" again; but that— a return to the present position—would be the effect of the amendments.
The Lords amendment would allow the present pattern of sentencing broadly to continue. A first-time burglar gets an average 16.2 months. A third-time burglar gets an average 18.9; and a seventh-time burglar gets an average 19.4 months. Almost 30 per cent. of burglars convicted for a seventh time in the Crown court are not sent to prison at all.
Is it any wonder that career burglars treat a sentence of this kind as a minor occupational hazard? I want to change the terms of trade against the career burglar. I want the career burglar to take up an alternative career.
Opposition Members say that they changed the Bill because they did not want to be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. I want to be fair to their victims—that is the difference between the Conservative party and the Opposition parties.

Mr. Jack Straw: If I heard him correctly, the Secretary of State has just said that Opposition Members have said that they do not wish to be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. When did any Opposition Member say that?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should read the debates held in another place. He will find that the thrust of the arguments behind the amendment showed the extraordinary lengths to which he and his hon. Friends would go to ensure that there was no possibility of a third-time burglar getting a minimum mandatory sentence under any circumstance in which that just might not be entirely in accordance with the wishes of the judge in the case. That is the effect of the amendment which the hon. Gentleman and his party supported in the other place.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has not answered my question. He made a serious allegation that Labour Members believe that such sentences would be unfair to burglars and drug dealers. Will he give one example of a Labour Front-Bench Member making such an assertion?

Mr. Howard: I said that that is the effect of all the arguments that were used—

Mr. Alun Michael: The Secretary of State is withdrawing.

Mr. Howard: No. That is the effect of all the arguments used in another place in support of the amendment.
There is a fundamental difference on this matter between the Conservative party and the Opposition. The Opposition are both soft on crime and soft on criminals. They always have been and they always will be. I wish to take this opportunity to make it clear that we shall amend the Bill to reverse the change as soon as possible after the election. The Opposition cannot and will not give the same pledge. That is the message that we shall take to the country in this general election: on law and order, as on every other issue, people can be sure only with the Conservatives.
We have accepted the amendments simply to get the rest of the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Michael: It will be voted down by Conservative Back Benchers.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, makes a preposterous allegation.
The Labour party pretends that it supports much of the Bill but its spokesman in another place, as he always does, gave the game away late last night. Unfortunately for him and his party, Hansard was still present, alert as ever, to record his words. The noble Lord said:
I would rather not have the Bill at all.

He went on to say:
The issues which the Bill raises will involve considerable heart searching after the election. I still do not know whether that will be done in statutory form, but something will have to be done about the provisions of this Bill.
That threat cannot be left unchallenged. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) repeatedly said that he would not tell the country what his attitude was to the Bill until he saw its final shape. Its shape is now there for all to see. It is time for the hon. Gentleman to come clean. Does he support the Bill? Does he agree with his noble Friend, who said that he would rather not have the Bill at all? Does he endorse his noble Friend's call that something will have to be done about the Bill after the election? Does he endorse the praise that his noble Friend heaped on the Liberal Democrats? Does he agree with him that
the Liberal-Democrat party has maintained its principle of civil libertarianism … in a relentless way"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1997; Vol. 579, c. 885.]
The hon. Gentleman must answer those questions—and answer them tonight.
The Bill, which provides automatic life sentences of imprisonment for repeat rapists and other serious sexual or violent offenders, honesty in sentencing so that no one can be released after five years when he or she has been sentenced to 10, and the principle of minimum mandatory sentences, constitutes the most radical step change in criminal justice this century. For the time being, for the reasons that I have given, I beg to move that the House accepts the Lords amendments.

Mr. Straw: We have just been treated to a foretaste of the technique that the Secretary of State intends to employ during the election. He makes assertions with no factual base and, when challenged, he shamelessly tries to wriggle out of the claim that he has just made by changing the words that he used. The Secretary of State laughs about this serious matter; no doubt he will laugh all the way to his Government's defeat in six weeks' time. It is a serious matter to stand at the Dispatch Box and charge Labour Front-Bench Members and Liberal Democrats with saying that it is unfair to gaol drug dealers and domestic burglars for three and seven years and, when challenged on that, to be unable to produce a single reference to justify it. To my knowledge, no such speech has ever been made. When the Secretary of State realised his error, he did not even apologise, but simply wriggled out of it by saying, "Oh well, it is the effect."

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
We had another example of that technique this morning on the radio when, in an increasingly hysterical interview, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition parties had sympathy for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman smirks about that. Every time he makes such ludicrous statements on the radio, all that happens is that more and more people have confidence in the Labour party's policies on law and order, not in his party's policies.
The simple truth is that the Government have been soft on burglars and drug dealers over the past 18 years. If the Secretary of State wants to judge on the record, not on


the rhetoric, burglary has rocketed since 1979. It has more than doubled. At the same time, there has been a threefold increase in the chance of a burglar getting away with his appalling crimes—getting off scot free. In 1979, one in 11 burglars were caught and convicted. Last year, the number had fallen to an appalling one in 33.
Illegal drugs now pervade and disfigure our society in a way that was unthinkable two decades ago. In the first five years of the present Prime Minister's Administration, the number of drug addicts notified to the Home Office more than doubled, from 18,000 in 1990 to over 37,000 in 1995.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman and his party are so keen to get burglars, drug dealers and other criminals convicted, why did they oppose the changes to the right to silence, which have led to a reduction of almost a half in the number of suspects refusing to answer questions put by the police and an increase in the number of guilty men convicted in the courts of this land every day of the year? Why did the hon. Gentleman's party oppose that change?

Mr. Straw: Yet again, the Secretary of State is trying to rewrite the record. We proposed what the royal commission recommended—[Interruption.] He now says that it did not go far enough. That is a different point from his claim that we wholly opposed what the Government were seeking to do.
Let the Secretary of State remember what happened. The royal commission recommended that inferences from the exercise of the right to silence ought to be adducible by the trial judge to the jury, in particular circumstances. We tabled amendments to put that into practice. The Secretary of State put forward a proposal that went further. At the time, those two were voted on. I made it clear to him in correspondence about six months ago that we are happy for the current law to remain.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim that the number of suspects refusing to answer has declined by a half, that is accurate in one sense, but it is worth remembering that it is a percentage of a percentage. The proportion who are now willing to answer has increased from 75 per cent. to about 85 per cent. I am happy that that has happened, but it is a rather different figure from the one that the Secretary of State implied.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State should make it clear when he refers to the Opposition parties that the Ulster Unionists would not wish to be associated with any effort not to impose the maximum sentences on repeat burglars, rapists and drug dealers?

Mr. Straw: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
I mentioned the fact that the number of drug addicts had doubled in the five years between 1990 and 1995. Where there is such drug addiction, there is inevitably much more crime, not just in the drug dealing itself, but in theft, burglary, robbery and all kinds of dishonesty to obtain the cash to feed the drug habit.
For all the Home Secretary's ridiculous, absurd bluster and his thrashing around to blame anyone and everyone for the rise in crime but the Government who have presided over it, he knows that the Government have been soft on burglars and drug dealers, as they have been on crime overall.
The Bill is an admission of 18 years of failure, for it fundamentally reverses the sentencing policy of 16 of those 18 years and turns on its head the Criminal Justice Act 1991, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted. That Act, as he knows, sought not to increase the length of prison sentences, but to cut them. It sought to prevent the courts from taking into account the character or the previous criminal record of defendants. That Act introduced the badly worded unit fine system, which almost brought the magistrates courts to their knees.
The Secretary of State voted for the lot. He now has the audacity, however, to claim that others are soft on crime. He complains about inconsistency in sentencing, yet in 1990 he voted against Labour's proposals to secure more consistency. He did so on the ground that what we said would interfere with judicial independence. He talked about
the dead hand of conformity
and argued that we would end up with the experience of the United States.
Reverses of policy have taken place on each of the 34 criminal justice Bills introduced over the past 18 years and during the passage of other Bills. The policy behind the Bill before us in respect of minimum sentences and much else has been characterised by one botch after another, one U-turn after another.
What exceptions should there be to prescribed minimum sentences for repeat burglars and-drug dealers? That is the issue before the House. When the Secretary of State made his speech at the 1995 Conservative party conference, his message was at least clear:
If you don't want the time, don't do the crime.
There were to be no exceptions of any sort. No exceptions were mentioned in any part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that October. It is—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but we can call for a copy of his speech. There were to be no exceptions. The word "exceptions" was never mentioned. No synonym was ever mentioned and there were no mentions of exceptions in the explanations added in the notes to editors, which are always a feature of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches to party conferences. The message was clear and unequivocal. As I said, there were to be no exceptions. Three convictions for burglary meant three years and three drug dealing convictions meant seven years.
Two months later, there was the first signal of a U-turn. The Law Society's Gazette was told in December 1995 by the Secretary of State that there might have to be exceptions. When the White Paper appeared in November last year, there was a reference to variations from the minimum in "genuinely exceptional cases". When the Bill was published in November, the wording had changed again. We were told through the Bill that there could be a lesser sentence in "exceptional circumstances".
Two people were probably responsible for the Secretary of State's U-turns. First, I suggest, was the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who in


1991 warned the House about the problems of minimum sentences. He described them as a "slippery slope". He argued that if one case is allowed as an exception, it becomes difficult to resist others. The hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that exceptions there would have to be because, as he explained, there are many degrees of blameworthiness.
I suggest that the second influence on the Secretary of State in his U-turns on exceptional circumstances was the Lord Chancellor. Lord Mackay has made no secret of his unhappiness with the way in which the sentencing policy outlined in the Bill was originally proposed, nor his unhappiness with the Secretary of State himself.
Lord Mackay gave a revealing interview in The Times on 5 November, which appeared on page 8. Having admitted in the interview that he had balked at the idea of minimum sentences, he said of the exceptional circumstances wording that he had ensured that that phrase was included
so judges could escape what they saw as a restriction on their ability to match punishment and crime.
He added:
I think it"—
the phrase—
enables them"—
the judges—
to deal justly with particular cases.
No one doubts the good faith of the Lord Chancellor. The problem is that the more the Bill has been examined in this place and the other place, the more it has become clear that its wording would not enable judges to deal justly with particular cases, as the Lord Chancellor said.
This is not a matter of speculation. Indeed, it is one of the few issues on which both Ministers and senior members of the judiciary are at present agreed. The Minister of State, for example, quoted with approval the view of the Lord Chief Justice that the relevant phrase will be construed narrowly. The Lord Chief Justice has led his colleagues in arguing that the wording will produce injustice.
In its abstract sense, injustice would not have been the only consequence of the Government's wording. There would have been personal, concrete injustice for any near-mentally defective individuals, whom not even Ministers in their quieter moments believed should have been locked up for three years, but who, on the tiny examples that we have been given by the Secretary of State, could easily have been, on three individual convictions.
There would have been even worse injustice to victims and their communities as, with the wording proposed by the Secretary of State, many more guilty criminals would have walked free from court.

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but it is not us but the Government who say that. Exactly that was said by the Government in their 1990 White Paper.
The point was rubbed in by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when, as Minister of State, Home Office, he said that minimum sentences
could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. That is always one thing that worries me about minimum sentences."—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 349.]
In response to that point, the hon. and learned Member for Burton said quite correctly that proper exceptions would have to be written into the Bill.

Mr. Howard: As, in general, juries do not know whether the defendant before them has previous convictions, they would not know whether a minimum mandatory sentence would apply in their case, so the hon. Gentleman's point completely falls.

Mr. Straw: I know that the Secretary of State had a very distinguished career at the planning Bar, but even from my—

Mr. Howard: Answer.

Mr. Straw: I was going to answer from my limited experience at the criminal Bar, and the much greater experience of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) at the criminal Bar. The Secretary of State does not live in the real world. In such circumstances, of course the character of the defendant would be given. Juries are not foolish or stupid. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why he, as a member of the Government, assented to the 1990 White Paper, which claimed categorically that minimum sentences could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. Why did the Government put that forward in 1990?

Mr. Howard: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, but he seems bereft of understanding this evening. There is a difference between the proposition identified in the White Paper, which deals with minimum sentences in general, and the very specific targeted proposals in the Bill that provide for minimum sentences for repeat offenders, for third-time burglars and for third-time traffickers in hard drugs. It would be a very bold counsel for the defendant who would automatically put before the jury the character of the defendant in those circumstances. That is the difference between the two.

Mr. Straw: But in any circumstance, one could arrive only at a situation where guilty men walked free as a result of the prospect of an automatic minimum sentence, if that was put in by the defence; and the Government of which the Secretary of State is a member clearly had that in mind when they asserted that absolute minimum sentences could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, these days, it is far more common for defence counsel to include their client's character in order to be able to bring out all the other advantageous facts for the defence that can flow only from the character going in, and that juries these days are very fair about defendants whose character is put in? That is the experience of all of us who practise


in the criminal courts. There is potential in the provisions for the totting up to be used by skilful counsel as a way of securing sympathy from the jury that would not be available currently. That, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, is the real world in which those of us who practise as criminal barristers operate.

Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course that is the real world, and that it is why there has to be proper provision for exceptions.
Without any regard for the facts of our amendment, the Secretary of State bleats that it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. We have heard that phrase time and again, and it is increasingly less convincing. It will do nothing of the kind, as Ministers in the other place made clear. We heard that nonsense just now from the Secretary of State, but in the other place the Government Chief Whip, Lord Strathclyde, said categorically that the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, provides for
automatic life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences; establishes the principle of mandatory minimum sentences for persistent drug offenders and domestic burglars".
Baroness Blatch added on Third Reading that the Bill
addresses some very serious concerns in the community about violent offences, dealing in Class A drugs and persistent burglaries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1997; Vol. 579, c. 838, 891.]
We agree with those sentiments. Much as they try, the Government cannot have it both ways.
Our amendment would give life to the intention of the Lord Chancellor to enable judges, within a framework of minimum sentences, to deal justly with particular cases. That was the phrase that the Lord Chancellor used. Why cannot the Government see that, or do they want the courts to deal unjustly with particular cases? Do they want to betray the interests of victims, as guilty people walk free from courts?
Our amendment has been carefully worded, and contrary to the claims of the Secretary of State, is very different in character and effect from that moved by the Liberal Democrats here and in the other place.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman seems to be coming to the end of his remarks. Before he sits down, I remind him of the undertaking that he gave to the House before the Bill left for the other place that, when it was in its final shape, he would tell the House and the country of his attitude to it. We look forward to his answering that question, and the other specific questions that I put to him on whether he agrees with the remarks made last night about the Bill by his noble Friend, Lord Mcintosh of Haringey.

Mr. Straw: Of course, I shall deal with our approach to the Bill. But as I was saying, our amendment is carefully worded, and is different in character and effect from that moved by the Liberal Democrats here and in the other place. There would be a clear presumption in favour of the minimum sentence. That was accepted when the debate on this amendment was held in the other place. The discretion of the court, which the Secretary of State has

accepted in principle, would be properly defined to avoid injustice and the betrayal of victims that would follow from his wording.
In addition, there would be the added safeguard that in every case the Attorney-General would be able to appeal any sentence that he felt made undue use of the limited discretion being given to the court. If we are in government, we intend to make use of that discretion. I do not believe for a moment that 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of cases that would otherwise trigger minimum sentences would result in an exercise by the courts of discretion. That was never the intention of this place or the other place. If that were to happen, it would obviously have to be looked at again by the House and by the Government.
In the other place, the amendment was supported not only by their Lordships on the Opposition Benches, but by 29 Conservative peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, the former Conservative Lord Chancellor. The Secretary of State should consider that the next time he accuses anyone who supports the amendment of being soft on burglars and soft on drug dealers. Is he suggesting that that long list of distinguished former Law Officers, Lord Chancellors and other Ministers of the Crown in Conservative Administrations in the past 18 years are soft on crime, soft on drug dealers and soft on burglars? I hope that in the next six weeks he will seek to elevate the debate above such insults not only to us—we can take those—but to members of his own party.
The other place having made its decision on the amendment, the proper constitutional way would have been for this House to debate and vote on it in the usual way. It is for this elected House to make final decisions on all such matters. That is what I agreed with the Secretary of State, and what the Labour Front Bench in the other place voted on yesterday. I regret that that has not happened. In many respects, however, the other place did the Home Secretary a favour yesterday. The Home Secretary knows that there was substantial support for our amendment, on his own side in the House of Commons as well as in the other place. He knows that, had the amendment been subject to a vote here, he would have been in great danger of being defeated by his hon. Friends.
I have made it clear throughout proceedings on the Bill, and I make it clear now, that we support automatic life sentences for repeat rapists and other serious sexual and violent offenders, as laid down in the Bill. We support the principle of minimum sentences of three and seven years respectively for thrice-convicted burglars and drug dealers, and, under the amendment, the practice as well. If such arrangements are to achieve their end, however, they must work justly and efficiently. The amendments that we have tabled will help that process.
The Government go into this election with a worse record on crime than any Government since the war, and a worse record than any other major industrialised country. A former Home Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), told The Guardian on 1 August last year:
The Labour Party is outflanking us on law and order and there is a serious danger of the Conservative Party at all levels losing the plot".
The Home Secretary has certainly lost the plot on law and order. Under his party, crime has rocketed, victims have suffered and communities have been disfigured by crime.
The sooner the present Government are swept from office, the sooner we can again have measures to make our communities safe again.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In my last gasp in the House, I make no apology for reviving—and, indeed, speaking from the heart of—the Liberal credentials that made me a Liberal and a member of the Liberal Democrat party.
When we hear the Labour party talk of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and when we hear the Home Secretary say,
If you don't want the time, don't do the crime,
we are not hearing policies or proposals; we are just hearing slogans. It really is time that both the present Government and the party that may well form the next Government got to grips with an issue that has been driven home to them time and again.
The issue has been driven home by, in particular, the likes of Lord Bingham, our present Lord Chief Justice; Lord Taylor, his immediate predecessor; Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls; and Lord Donaldson, the previous Master of the Rolls—no socialist he—that the basis for making new laws in relation to criminal justice policy is worthless unless it is founded on principles of justice.
When the Bill left the House of Commons after Third Reading, the Labour party was doing a sort of soft shoe shuffle around the issues. It was not sure whether it was for or against the new provisions, or somewhere in between. In the House of Lords, it was Liberal Democrat peers who started the debate that has led to the amendment that the House of Commons will accept tonight—and I am proud of that, too.
What was the basis of the argument advanced by the Liberal Democrat peers? It was purely that the law should be just and should continue to be administered by judges, and that the House of Commons should not tell judges how to exercise their discretion in matters that go to the very root of judicial discretion.
The Labour party, of course, could not adopt the Liberal Democrat amendments in the other place; apparently, it would have been undignified for it to do so. It therefore created its own amendment, and that is what is contained in the amendments that we are debating now.
Yesterday, we were in a very odd position. It is clear that it took the Liberal Democrats to force the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, in which the House will accept a Labour amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, because the Labour party is not sure whether it really wanted its amendment— which was passed by the Lords—to be passed in the House of Commons. What a strange situation that is. However, things often move in a mysterious way and here we are.
What are we left with? For the Home Secretary to say that his particular prejudices being defeated results in a coach and horses being driven through the Bill is very unconvincing. He has a distinguished past as an expert in town and country planning law—I am told that there was none better—but he has shown his inexperience time and again in the understanding of what happens in criminal courts.
One is bound to ask oneself: what does one have to do to a Home Secretary such as this if he will not listen to the Lord Chief Justice, the previous Lord Chief Justice,

the Master of the Rolls, the previous Master of the Rolls, the former Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who was a Minister of State in the Home Office and who single-handedly won the argument on Second Reading on the Bill? What does it take to persuade the Home Secretary that the basis for changing criminal justice policy must be to produce just results?
I am disappointed that we have not gone a stage further than the amendments. They contain the apparently unacceptable proposition that someone should not receive a mandatory minimum sentence for burglary or the possession of class A drugs if it would be unjust for him to receive such a sentence for the possession of class A drugs or burglary, so the Government want sentences to be passed that are unjust. That is the only conclusion that one can draw, and it is a most extraordinary one.

Mr. James Wallace: By definition.

Mr. Carlile: By definition, as my hon. Friend says.
We can view with great satisfaction the outcome of the negotiations. There will be minimum mandatory sentences. The Home Secretary should recognise that we for one have moved some way towards his position in accepting that there should be new presumptions in sentencing policy. Today, when the judge sentences for a third burglary or a third class A drugs offence, he takes what he considers to be the appropriate sentence, having regard to the leading cases that are in the standard books on sentencing. He then tinkers one way or the other with those standard sentences.
When the Bill enters into law, the position will be completely different. It will be presumed that the minimum mandatory sentence should be passed, but, if the judge goes through a different thought process from today's sentencing procedures and decides that it would be unjust to pass such a sentence, he will pass another sentence. What on earth can be wrong with that? It considers the victims of crime, it ensures that the criminal receives the proper sentence, and it is a sensible process. It is extraordinary to be told that that drives a coach and horses through the Bill.
We Liberal Democrats were not as successful as we would have wished to be in relation to mandatory life sentences. Yesterday in the other place, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in a moving and eloquent speech, pointed out that the passing of a sentence of life imprisonment is a solemn and formidable occasion. The person who is sentenced forfeits not only the time that he spends in prison, but the rest of his life, to the state. In certain circumstances, the state can recall him to prison, even if he does not commit a criminal offence.
I have been in court, probably on more occasions than the Home Secretary, when life sentences have been passed. Unfortunately, not a small number of them have been on people whom I have defended unsuccessfully, and I am delighted to say that a fair number have been on people whom I have prosecuted successfully. It is a solemn occasion, and not something to be trifled with.
It is extremely important that, when a life sentence is passed and the judge makes the prisoner forfeit the rest of his life to the state, even after that prisoner is released, if he is to be, there should be a clear understanding that


there is a system of real justice embracing that solemn process. There is no more solemn process in the courts than the passing of a life sentence.
I would therefore have liked to see the same amendment made in relation to mandatory life sentences as in relation to burglary and class A drugs offences. None the less, we have agreed to go a little bit of the way with the Home Secretary, by means of subsection (3) of the new clause to be inserted by Lords amendment No. 1.
In life sentence cases, there will be an even stronger presumption that there should be an automatic life sentence. A case in which that will not happen will have to be very exceptional. To describe that as driving a coach and horses through the Bill passes understanding. I am afraid that it is another of the Home Secretary's slogans.
In sum, we, the Liberal Democrats, are pleased to have been the instrument of justice—for that is what we have been, when the Labour party was reluctant to play that part, and when the Home Secretary could not see it when it stared him in the face.

It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question required to be put at that hour by Order [this day].

ESTIMATES, 1997–98

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £115,536,748,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 335, 336 and 337.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim and Mrs. Angela Knight do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1998; to appropriate the

supplies granted in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day and to be printed [Bill 140].

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day] and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Amendments or proposals relating to bills which may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

CRIME (SENTENCES) BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I was about to add one comment. I hope that, during the general election campaign, those who may be in the House afterwards will allow the public to be given a sensible and informed debate on the issues surrounding the criminal justice system.
Members of Parliament serve the public ill by misleading them about the nature of legislation and the attitudes of other political parties. Every party represented in the House, without exception, wants to improve criminal justice policy. No party in the House is soft on crime. We are all striving to find better solutions to a serious problem. Let us hope that, during the election campaign, the subject can be debated intelligently, for a change.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 88 agreed to.

Education Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Education Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. I understand that copies of the Lords amendments are now available in the Vote Office.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments to the Education Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Forth.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 110 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
The order would withdraw from effect, subject to possible later revival, the provisions of section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996, which established a forum for discussion of
issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland".
Putting it in plain English, the order would wind up the forum, at least for the time being.
If, in the language of section 7 of the Act, it appears to me that the negotiations that have been proceeding in Northern Ireland since last June are suspended, I am obliged by that section to make an order of this character, which requires the approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
At a session of the opening plenary of the negotiations on 5 March it was acknowledged that, in the words of the chairmen's statement, while some areas of potential agreement had been identified, no basis had emerged for reaching agreement on the question of decommissioning.
That crucial subject has been under discussion since last autumn. There was a general recognition that further progress in the talks was impossible before the general election and the local elections that will be held in Northern Ireland on 21 May, so the plenary agreed to adjourn until 3 June. By reason of that and of all other relevant circumstances, it appears to me that by that adjournment the talks are suspended. Accordingly, I must make the order.
It has been a disappointment to us all that the talks were not able to make greater progress in their first nine months. It is important that the participants want to resume, and they will do so on 3 June. We should not underrate the progress that has been made under the dedicated and excellent chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell of the United States, General John de Chastelain of Canada and Prime Minister Harri Holkeri of Finland.
The participants agreed a complex set of rules of procedure, and there was a wide measure of agreement on the agenda for substantive negotiations—although there has so far been no vote on that question—but they have not been able to reach agreement on the question of decommissioning of arms, despite much discussion and the emergence in some areas of a significant degree of potential agreement.
Decommissioning is a question of capital importance. There is very wide agreement that there can be no place in a democracy for the use or threatened use of force for political purposes. It is the Government's view that the only approach likely to deliver decommissioning of arms illegally held by terrorist organisations is the approach recommended by Senator Mitchell and his colleagues in the international body. That is the approach requiring that some decommissioning take place during the progress of political negotiations.
That is a question to which the talks will undoubtedly have to return. I hope that it will prove possible to advance quickly over the decommissioning hurdle and


enter into the substance of the negotiations. I am delighted that the independent chairmen have reaffirmed their personal commitment to the process. Meanwhile, by reason of the forthcoming elections, we have reached an impasse, and hence the suspension.
I want to emphasise that I believe that the negotiations have the potential to deliver the settlement that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland hope for. The process is capable of bringing together all the main political interests in Northern Ireland, but they must each acquire the same entry ticket: they must show that they are willing to work only by democratic and non-violent means.
Sinn Fein should at once remove its self-imposed exclusion. An IRA ceasefire should be unequivocally and credibly restored, and Sinn Fein should show that the other conditions set out in section 2 of the Act are fulfilled. That will open the way for an invitation to Sinn Fein to enter the talks.
Most important is the fact that the process is one of dialogue. Without dialogue, the prospects for Northern Ireland are at best unpromising. I profoundly hope that, early in my successor's time, there will be sustained movement into substantive negotiations, and progress through the heavy agenda that must be addressed, in a generous and constructive spirit. That, I believe, is what much the greater part of the people of Northern Ireland hope for from the talks, despite the anxieties and hesitations that they will inevitably feel.
If such progress can be brought about, we have the prospect of a far brighter and more hopeful future for Northern Ireland. However, if it cannot be brought about, prospects will be far worse across the entire range of everyday life for everyone who lives there. I firmly believe that there are sensible grounds for hope. For the moment, however, a pause in the process has supervened.
It is right, therefore, to review briefly the work of the forum. It opened shortly after the talks, on 14 June last year. It set to work with industry, under the distinguished and dedicated chairmanship of Mr. John Gorman, who deserves warm thanks for agreeing to take on so novel and challenging a set of responsibilities.
Many of the forum's early meetings were taken up with discussion and agreement on its rules of procedure. They were eventually agreed, and were approved by me in September 1996. Since then, it has debated and considered a wide range of social and economic issues, including education, health care, disability, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and environmental pollution. In addition, it has established five standing committees, whose remits currently relate to education, health, agriculture and fisheries, the economy and public order. Some of its proceedings have attracted criticism, but I believe that, by a substantial balance, its work has been beneficial. It was a pity that the Social Democratic and Labour party thought it right to withdraw from the forum, and I greatly hope that, when it is revived, the SDLP will return.
When considering the motion, we should note that the forum's initial lifespan would in any event have expired at the end of May this year. The Secretary of State is, however, with the approval of Parliament, empowered to revive it for a further period, or periods, until its definitive

expiry at the end of May 1998. It cannot go on longer. That will plainly not be a matter for me, but I can say that it will be the intention of a future Conservative Government to revive the forum as early as practicable in the life of a new Parliament. That is for the future. Meanwhile, I invite the House to agree that the forum should, in conformity with the scheme that the House approved last year, cease to meet because the talks are suspended. I commend the draft order to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: As this will be my last debate with the Secretary of State, I acknowledge and put on record his personal commitment over his years in the job to trying to move the Northern Ireland peace process forward. We know that from trying to keep up with him seven days a week when he is working as hard as I know he has. His determination to keep Northern Ireland high up the political agenda is well known, and we wish him well when he leaves the House at the forthcoming general election at the end of a distinguished career. In view of what he said earlier, we ought to wish the horse well, too.
It is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who has been here all evening, has left. This is also his last Parliament, and I put on record the Opposition's acknowledgment of his breadth of knowledge and of the fact that his commitment both to the House and to his constituents over many years has been unstinting. The House will miss him.
The order is relatively uncontentious. It is the expression in statute of our view that the sittings of the Northern Ireland forum should be entirely dependent on the existence of the talks process. Labour's insistence on that helped to produce the legislation in this form. The elections held last May were designed to build confidence and provide a route into negotiations. As the Prime Minister said, there were two options—some prior decommissioning or an elective process—to determine who should take part in negotiations. The second option provided the route for talks to begin on 10 June. That Sinn Fein was not part of those negotiations when they began was entirely its own responsibility. It is up to the IRA and Sinn Fein to do what is necessary to convince us that they genuinely want peace.
The elections also provide delegates to the forum. The existence of the forum was not approved widely in both communities in Northern Ireland. To offset that disadvantage, it was given a specific remit to discuss
issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland".
Some members of the forum, whether they currently attend or not, would dispute that that objective had been adhered to, but many of the debates have been informative, such as the debates on the damage caused by the action for community employment cuts, on the problems in the health service and on drug abuse. The committees set up by the forum have also produced some interesting reports, for example on the BSE crisis, on opposition to the Government's proposals on the education and library boards, which were mentioned in an earlier debate, and on water fluoridation.
I am not making a judgment this evening about the operation or effectiveness of the forum, but democratic accountability and openness in Northern Ireland are of


concern to us. They are themselves issues of trust and confidence. We hope to have the chance to examine them in much greater detail across the board in Northern Ireland. I have said that, in the event of a Labour victory in the election, we will introduce the necessary order to give the forum its second year of life. I trust that, if we do that, the central objective of discussing issues relevant to the promotion of dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of people's minds when they begin again to take part in the forum debates.
We support the order. As the Secretary of State said, it is a procedural matter. If we are in government after 1 May, our main focus will be on making a success of the talks process. It is essential that progress is made towards a just and fair settlement that is supported by both traditions. It is crucial that current hurdles are overcome, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in line with both the principles and the recommendations in the Mitchell report.
Those taking part in the forum can help by working to build an atmosphere of trust and confidence to encourage those taking part in the talks on both sides to engage with each other and reach a new accommodation. I trust and hope that they will do so.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not follow the line that he took for much of his speech, which was, by way of giving his view of the worthiness of the talks process, the work that it has gone through and the basis of the forum. I do not follow him because I think that he is attempting to achieve by deflection what the Northern Ireland Office attempted to achieve by deception.
In a press release issued on 10 March, the Northern Ireland Office stated that the forum was being suspended. The order shows clearly that there is to be a cessation. The Secretary of State is wiping away the Northern Ireland elected body that was set up as a result of the elections last year. He does that without any degree of balance.
When the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 went before the House, it had an equivalence— on the one hand a talks process, and on the other the Northern Ireland forum. The Act made it clear that the elections that would be held would be for those two purposes. On that basis, Unionists were prepared to take part. For Unionists, the process clearly required those two facets. As soon as the Secretary of State takes away one of those facets, he undermines the whole. In short, there will be no talks if there is no forum.
The bottom line in terms of the order is that the Secretary of State is wasting the time of the House. The House does not need to deal with the order. There is no requirement for it. The Secretary of State has a responsibility under the Act to bring the forum to a conclusion if he judges that the talks have been either concluded or suspended.
The participants in the talks process made it abundantly clear when asked for their views at the last meeting that they were adjourning the talks and that they were doing so to a specific date. There was no question in their minds but that they were suspending the talks. There was no view expressed that the talks were concluded. The talks were adjourned to a specific date and that was not the first

occasion on which that had happened. On several previous occasions, the talks had similarly been adjourned, the most recent being the adjournment over the Christmas and new year period. There was nothing new in the participants' deciding to adjourn proceedings.
The talks participants did not adjourn for the reason the Secretary of State offered the House tonight. I was somewhat surprised by his indication that there were problems in relation to decommissioning—that an impasse had been reached; thus, he said, suspension, but disagreement on decommissioning had nothing to do with the reason for the adjournment. The adjournment came because of the expected elections for the House of Commons and for local government in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State is asked in section 7(4) of the 1996 Act to determine whether negotiations have concluded or suspended. Clearly they had not done so, so the forum could have continued its business until it decided, in its wisdom, that it would be appropriate to adjourn. What did the forum decide? It decided that, because of the two elections, it would adjourn its business. It has already resolved that it should adjourn—it has taken the decision and is now in adjournment. The body that the Secretary of State seeks through tonight's order to put into cold storage has already put itself into cold storage. It is master of its own business. It has determined that it will adjourn until 30 May—the last possible date to which it could have adjourned under the present legislation.
The Secretary of State, in proceeding with this order tonight, must therefore have some motive other than to stop the forum from meeting—the forum did not intend to meet. Why does he do it? I can offer two explanations, and he can choose between them. One explanation might be that he is afraid that the committees might continue and do some valuable work, or that the forum might decide to come out of adjournment and make some public comment unfavourable to the Government. That is one possibility, but the Secretary of State should not run away from the views of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
The other possible explanation is that the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation demanded that the Secretary of State close down the forum. Is he being obedient to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who have required him to do what he is doing here tonight? I let him choose which of those two explanations is the right one. If he has a third, let him tell it to the House tonight, because he has yet to tell the people of Northern Ireland what reason he has for doing something that is totally unnecessary. The forum has decided itself that it should adjourn, and the legislation does not require him to cause the forum to cease to have effect if it has adjourned to a specific date.
I hope that the Secretary of State will face up to those issues. He has put on public record his understanding that a future Conservative Government after the 1 May election would be prepared to resurrect the forum if talks were to proceed, and I seek a similar statement from the Labour party. I heard Labour Front Benchers' comments on local radio, and I hope that they, too, will put their views—dare I say unequivocally—on public record tonight. I put it to them that in the forum we have a body that has done a significant and positive job for the people of Northern Ireland.
Labour Members should not decry the fact that, in some areas, politicians in Northern Ireland have not achieved agreement. It does not automatically follow that we have


done a good job in areas about which we agree—such as agriculture, health, education or drugs—and a bad job in areas on which there is not unanimity. If those were the criteria, what obituary would the House have, given that we disagree on a wide spectrum of matters? The record of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation would be much better than the record of the House of Commons if the litmus test that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) offers were the right one.
The forum has done a significant job in airing controversial issues. The fact that a matter is controversial does not mean that it should not be raised in the forum. If we are to achieve understanding in Northern Ireland, it is important that each party understands the angle of vision of the others, so the forum has performed an important role. There were 31 plenary meetings. About five or six committee reports have been produced. The committees would have wanted to continue their work and produce further reports. As an innovation, a representative whom the Secretary of State had appointed to carry out a review of policing in Northern Ireland spoke to the forum and was questioned by it—all in a calm, deliberative manner.
The work of the forum deserves significant credit, and I am glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that, even in his assessment of the performance of the forum, substantially, it had worked to its credit.
Before I conclude, may I say to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there really is a requirement—I put it as strongly as that, a requirement— on the SDLP to return to the forum? Its representatives cannot turn their back on the elected body to which they were elected. The people of Northern Ireland from their tradition determined that they should be at the forum to speak and vote on their behalf. Through no fault of the Unionist representation in the forum, the SDLP turned its back on the forum and decided, because it was under pressure on an issue of public concern in Northern Ireland, to take it out on the forum. That is essentially what the SDLP did.
The only ugly scene that I witnessed in the forum involving the SDLP was an attack on the SDLP, not by the Unionists, but by the so-called sister party of the Liberal Democrats, the Alliance party, which sneaked into the forum, stole the seats of the SDLP and tried to push it into the background.
Who stood up for the rights of the SDLP in the forum? The Unionist parties. The SDLP has no reason to say that the Unionists were not sympathetic to ensuring that its rights were protected in the forum.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that that was an odd line that the hon. Gentleman was fishing with to get me to respond. Let the House know that the SDLP withdrew from the forum because it was the only democratic weapon that we had to show our horror and disgust at the Drumcree events, the intimidation of our communities and the blocking of every road in Northern Ireland, led by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. What did people want us to do—go to the barricades?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he took out on the forum something that was not its

responsibility. He talks about taking up a democratic weapon, but there is little sense in taking up a democratic weapon if one merely shoots oneself in the foot with it, as he and the SDLP have done.
I noticed the hon. Gentleman marching in the St. Patrick's day parade a few days ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on calm reflection, while going around his constituency during the coming election, will spend a moment to think of the useful work he could be doing on behalf of his constituents in the forum. If the new Government take the step of resurrecting the forum, and we then attend our first meeting, I hope to see the pleasant, smiling face of the hon. Member for South Down as he takes his seat on the forum benches.

Mr. John D. Taylor: St. Patrick, great British personality that he was, has been mentioned this evening. I have just spent a long weekend in Washington attending various events marking the annual occasion. I was at the White House, at our British embassy and elsewhere. I travelled back last night, and have been on my feet for the past 36 hours, so I shall certainly not speak at great length.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) for her tribute to our former parliamentary leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who is leaving the House at the forthcoming election. I know that he will thank her himself, but I wanted to place my party's appreciation for her kind thoughts on the record.
In turn, we wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland all the best. As a former Stormont Minister, I know that the role he has had to play is one of the most difficult in the Government of the United Kingdom. It is not just a matter of deciding policies; the job concerns issues of life and death. No other Cabinet Minister carries such serious responsibilities. Although my party has had many differences with the Secretary of State on issues of policy, I and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party know that he believed at all times that he was acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We appreciate the time and service which he has given our community.
I find it difficult to understand the order under discussion. I share the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson); I remain unconvinced that such an order is necessary. If it is possible to adjourn the forum for the Christmas recess, it seems to me possible to adjourn it for the few weeks of a general election campaign. I fail to understand the need for an order formally suspending the body. I can certainly understand the need for an order to resume the forum after 31 May— the legislation requires that if the forum is to have a second year of life.
In Northern Ireland, there are three possible ways forward. One is to resort to violence, to killing, to terrorism and to destruction. We have had that for more than 27 terrible years, and we do not want to fall back into it. The second option is for the Dublin Government and our Government to attempt to impose a solution on Northern Ireland. That will definitely result in street reaction by the people of Northern Ireland. We have had that before, and we do not want violence again.
The only way forward, therefore, is dialogue and agreement. That is what the legislation providing for the forum and the talks process was all about. I am glad of


the recognition of the progress that has been made in the talks process at Stormont. We have reached agreement on a number of issues: on the chairmanship, the rules of procedure, and the agenda for the first plenary session. Whenever there was a crisis on those issues, it was the Ulster Unionist party that gave the lead in bringing about agreement. I believe that the talks process can make progress.
The good news is that the nine participating parties mat entered the talks nine months ago, even if others tried to throw them out, are still there tonight. That is an achievement in Northern Ireland, where so many people have walked out of talks on various issues over many years.
Tributes have been paid to the forum's work. I agree that it has passed many motions and resolutions that would appeal to Labour Members, as was said in an earlier debate. Likewise, the committee work has been imaginative and has contributed towards parties in Northern Ireland working together for the good of all the people there. We have had reports on BSE, potatoes, agriculture and many other issues, all of which have been first-class productions.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I appeal to the Social Democratic and Labour party to reconsider its position. Dialogue requires everyone to participate— that is, everyone who opposes violence. The SDLP has portrayed itself as—and is—a constitutional party. From time to time, through its leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), it has said that it will talk anywhere, any place, any time. Our national Parliament created a forum in Belfast and I hope that, after the forthcoming general election, when the political temperature subsides, we shall find the SDLP taking its proper place in the Northern Ireland forum.
We in the Ulster Unionist party want to see the forum and the talks proceed. If there is no forum, there will be no talks process because the legislation combines both— one goes with the other. The Government clearly understand that message, which is why we welcome the Secretary of State's statement that, after the general election, a future Conservative Government would restore the forum in Northern Ireland. Likewise, the hon. Member for Redcar also made a commitment that a future Labour Government would restore the forum in Belfast. We welcome the Labour party's statement and look forward to the election. Whichever party wins, we are thankful that we shall once again have a forum in Belfast in June 1997.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and I have worked closely together on many occasions. We had deep divisions but always respected one another, and he knows that well. He and I entered the House at the same time; he is now leaving the Chamber—although I do not think that he is leaving the House; he is going elsewhere and will still be seen in the Corridors as an ex-Member of Parliament. We wish him well. I used to tell him that, if he got married, I would do the marriage ceremony for nothing, but he never took up that offer. That is a pity— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) could have shared it.
Some things need to be said tonight. I agree whole-heartedly with what my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said: there was

no need for tonight's debate. Nothing in law makes the Secretary of State come to the House and say that he is exercising those powers, because the forum can go on until the end of May. A new Parliament would then be in existence and it could deal with the issue.
The forum has been severely criticised, simply because Sinn Fein said that it would not be there. How could anybody trust Sinn Fein? It tells us that it wants to look at the whites of our eyes and enter into debate. It could have debated with us every Friday at the forum; we could not have kept it out. It was a member of the forum; why did it not come?
Sinn Fein did not come because the forum is the only representative body in Northern Ireland that mirrors the wishes of the electorate. The crowd that meets at Stormont does not mirror the electorate, because the largest party has three people at the table and the smallest party has two. There is no proper representation at the talks at Stormont. At the last meeting, the two Governments and the SDLP were able to block any discussion about decommissioning. All the other parties wanted to talk about the 17 resolutions that we had on the table, except the southern Government, the British Government—our own Government—and the SDLP, so we were not allowed to talk.
At least in the forum there is a mirroring of the percentage of votes of each party. Of course, I disagree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). We did not push the SDLP out of the forum. We wanted SDLP representatives to stay. We fought and we adjourned the talks, so that the chairman could shift the Alliance party representatives out of their seats. They had to be shifted out of their seats—the Alliance party that reads us all lectures about good behaviour, law keeping and so on.
I fought to get the SDLP representatives seated, but what thanks did we get? They all went away. They told us tonight that they went away because of what happened. The hon. Gentleman may as well have gone away from the House, because the House has more responsibility for what happened in Northern Ireland than the forum ever had. The Secretary of State took decisions about what happened in Northern Ireland. To go away because one does not get one's own way is childish.
The issue in the forum centred on the fact that we believed that the flag of our country should fly, but others disagreed. That was the bone of contention: should the Union flag be seen on the building? A great deal of rubbish was spoken about whether it was a public building, whether people could object under the present laws and so on. A strange country we live in, when the national flag cannot fly on an elected forum. That would not be said about Dublin castle. If I went there and said, "Take down that flag—it offends me," I would be strung up from the nearest lamp post.
It is a shame that the SDLP representatives do not go to that forum. They should be there and they should be debating with us. If they can persuade us, they should do so. They do not like the forum because it mirrors the percentage of the electorate of Northern Ireland. They are not a majority. Even if they brought Sinn Fein with them, they would not be a majority. That is their trouble.
Those who are in a majority position in Northern Ireland are reduced by boycotts of public bodies. We sat at Stormont. We did good work on the prior assembly.
The SDLP would not come to Stormont either. The official Unionists boycotted the other talks. My party was at all the talks.
I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) speaking about Washington. I got an invitation to the Washington do, and I was amazed. It was in honour of his excellency the Prime Minister of Ireland and Mrs. Bruton. I am sure the hon. Gentlemen did not say in their constituencies that they were away to Washington to honour the Prime Minister of Ireland—not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic—oh no, the Prime Minister of Ireland and, I am sure, his dear, sweet wife. I had no intention of going.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I am not giving way. Did the right hon. Gentleman not get an invitation?
Let us have a little common sense and realise that there are deep feelings in Northern Ireland about the territorial claim of the Irish Government and of Mr. Bruton himself. I will not honour the Prime Minister of Ireland because there is not a Prime Minister of Ireland. There is a Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, but he is not the Prime Minister of the whole of Ireland, and the same applies to his sweet wife.
This Parliament is following the foolish path that it took years ago when it abolished Stormont. I heard the former Prime Minister say, "We have settled things in Northern Ireland. There will now be peace." That was when Stormont was prorogued. I said, "It has been like a Sunday-school party hitherto. Now you will see the real happenings." How true that prophecy was. Look back upon what happened when Stormont was abolished.
I acknowledge that Stormont was not a perfect assembly. I was a member of it only at its end. I was a leader of the Opposition when all the nationalists left. That was when I got a job. I led for the Opposition. It is interesting that all the leaders of the Opposition were nationalists until I came along at the end of the day. I know of Stormont's weaknesses, but it was pulled down when it could have worked. It could have been mended. It could have been helped. Instead of that, the House said, "Wipe it away."

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That was not my vote.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that.
What happened? We had chaos. I say to the Government and to those who think that they are the Government in waiting, but only God knows that, that my party will not be at the talks until the forum has its first meeting. My party will not be bluffed. I am aware of the deals that have been talked about with Dublin. One of the deals is that the forum cannot meet if the IRA declares a ceasefire. That is the IRA's position and its negotiating stance. In effect, it is saying, "We can't have that forum meeting. We never went to it. We don't want it to meet. We don't want the Unionists to be discussing what is happening." If there is to be a move on either side of the

House to bring back talks without the forum, that will not be on. I am glad that there are signs that some agree with me.
It is not on to say to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, "We are not going to listen to you." The reasoned majority of the Ulster people must be heard. The election will prove that once again. The people will not have their elected assembly destroyed merely because the Social Democratic and Labour party or Sinn Fein says, "We are not going to sit in it."
It could be that, before the forum returns, Sinn Fein will declare a ceasefire. There are some who say that that will be before the election. I do not think so. I think that the announcement will be made after that. If Sinn Fein does better than is expected in the election, it will say, "We have got our votes and we will now have a ceasefire." Before anyone can say anything in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State, who holds the key, can say, "Yes, we are inviting you." If Sinn Fein is to say to the British Government, whichever party forms that Administration, "Right, we are prepared to return to the previous ceasefire," that will not be sufficient. It was a phoney ceasefire. The Government should be warned of that, whoever that Government may be.
My party will not be sitting with the gunmen who have not given up one weapon. They are engaged in terrorism. There is serious news from Northern Ireland. Shipments of arms and armaments are getting through. We could be in for the darkest and bloodiest of times. Is it thought that any self-respecting Unionist will negotiate with people who can put a gun to his head and say, "I don't agree with the talks at the forum; we shall start up violence again"? They will be responsible. They are responsible, and the Government—whoever they are—must deal with IRA-Sinn Fein and anybody else who has weapons and is not prepared to give them up. Let the House learn that tonight.
It is sad that, at the end of this Parliament, we shall abolish something that does not need to be abolished. Why not let it ride out its time? On a free vote, the forum decided unanimously that it would adjourn. That is how it should have been left. It is a pity that we are having this discussion, which will not help the decent people of Northern Ireland who want peace and liberty, who want, as does everybody else, to do their work and to rear their families in peace and quiet.

11 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have only two brief points. I have a suggestion as to how the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party can get the Social Democratic and Labour party into the forum. I made this point in an earlier debate. If the Unionists entered, or proposed to enter, the British-Irish parliamentary body, could they not make a deal with the SDLP so that the SDLP could go to the forum and the Unionists could go to the British-Irish parliamentary body?
The British-Irish parliamentary body has nothing to do with interfering with territory and arguments of that nature; it operates in much the same way as the forum in terms of committees, and produces reports on day-to-day concerns. There must be many matters that it would be useful to discuss with the Republic of Ireland—matters that do not in any way interfere with sovereignty. The two


separate countries would have to decide, through their own systems, the extent to which they accept any proposals.
We have Select Committees in the House, but that does not mean that, if a Select Committee produces a report, the Government have to respond to its recommendations. The British-Irish parliamentary body is a weaker link to some extent. Representatives from two different nations meet and discuss ideas. Reports are produced on valuable measures on social security and a whole host of issues that are quite enlightening to the representatives of the two nations.
There is a chance for the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP to talk turkey and to make arrangements so that they overcome the limitations of being involved in forums and bodies in which it would be fruitful for them to be involved.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there are three strands in the present talks structure, and that strand 3 addresses the issue of relationships between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom? Therefore, to follow the line that he suggests would undermine the purpose of strand 3.

Mr. Barnes: From the talks, all sorts of things might develop about the future of Northern Ireland. It might affect whether there is to be a forum and what the arrangements are. In the end, the people of Northern Ireland will decide. In the meantime, the British-Irish parliamentary body would not interfere in any way with these matters. Its discussions are mainly about economic and social matters, the role of the European Union, funding and so on. Those are matters about which it is quite fruitful to have different viewpoints.
TDs and senators on the Irish side of the discussion are keen for Ulster Unionists to be involved, not to dominate them or to influence the decisions. They feel that a viewpoint is not being put. It is fruitful to have debate between people to sort out one's position. The Unionists could do a valuable job within the British-Irish parliamentary body.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have carefully followed the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We are always interested to hear what he has to say in a Northern Ireland debate, because he is one of those who contributes to Northern Ireland business. He does not compare equals. The forum is a body elected by the people of Northern Ireland. It was elected to bring the talks about, as the way into the talks is by the forum. One cannot participate in the talks without being a member of the forum.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about a body of people representing two Parliaments. That raises the issue of the claims of the Irish Parliament, which was built on the 1937 constitution. That constitution states that the Irish Parliament's authority is over the whole of the island. I will not sit down with any representative who says, "I rule you anyway. You're here only on my sufferance." I do not want to sit down in such a body. If the colleagues to whom the hon. Gentleman refers really want peace, why do they not get rid of that immoral, illegal and criminal constitutional claim? We would then have the Berlin wall down.

Mr. Barnes: Many hon. Members on both sides, from Ireland and from the United Kingdom, who attend the

British-Irish parliamentary body, would like articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to be removed. Some of them want that to happen more quickly, and for some it is a long-term aim. Understanding would be much greater if the Ulster Unionists were involved and could put that view strongly.
I grant that these are different bodies with different arrangements, and that one has a direct democratic mandate, whereas the other is an indirect arrangement between the two Parliaments. However, given the present impasse—the Social Democratic and Labour party does not attend the forum and the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionist party do not attend the body—such involvement may be fruitful, and I hope that serious thought will be given to my suggestion.
I often show my dislike of the Conservative Government and much of what they stand for, but I have great reservations about such criticism when it comes to the present team led by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I often feel that their position is somewhat undermined by other factors.
The problem of parliamentary arithmetic has had an impact on developments, although not as great as some Opposition Members believe. The Northern Ireland team have the problem of the ideological baggage that the Conservative party carries around with it. Sometimes they take up economic and social policies that are replicas of those applied to Great Britain. That undermines some of their work to establish peace and reconciliation.
I welcome the work that has come out of the framework documents and the role that the Secretary of State has played. I have encouraged that, although I have not always accepted everything. I want to associate myself with the comments that other hon. Members have made about the Secretary of State.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be fairly brief. I open my remarks by saying how much Conservative Members owe my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he has filled the difficult position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have heard much about the forum, but it is a tribute to him that the forum has been established.
I also want to pay tribute to the British armed services, which have protected the people of Northern Ireland through difficult times, and have perhaps offered reassurance in times of comparative peace.
I regret that the forum is to be suspended, and I am just a little worried about what other issues in Northern Ireland are being suspended. Let me draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the findings of the judicial review back in December, when the cases of my constituents Jim Fisher and Mark Wright—two Scots Guardsmen—were referred back to the life sentence prison review board. Since then, there appears to have been stagnation and inaction.
I should have liked to hear that, as well as the forum's being suspended, the process in that regard would be reversed—that there would be no suspension of the review board's examination of the position of those two guardsmen, with the possibility of a fair and just settlement in respect of their current imprisonment at an early date.
Other soldiers who have made errors of judgment on the streets of Northern Ireland have served three and three and a half years respectively. These two soldiers have now served more than four and a half years, and every week that passes is wasted time for them and their families. I feel that those in the Northern Ireland Office, particularly the civil servants, should get a move on with the inquiry in which they have been asked to engage, make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend, and bring justice to the cases of Mark Wright and Jim Fisher.

Ms Mowlam: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Let me make clear our hope that, when the forum resumes after the election, whichever party is in government—for the commitment to resumption has been made clear by both sides of the House—matters relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland are at the forefront of the minds of all delegates, and that all parties to the talks bring a renewed vigour and commitment to their efforts to reach agreement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me give grateful thanks for the kind and gracious things that have been said about me, and couple with that the name of my future horse. I refer to the tribute kindly paid by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), in particular, for mentioning the team.
I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—who is now in his place beside me—will no longer be here, his constituency having sadly been shot from under him by the boundary commission. My right hon. Friend has greatly assisted the people of Northern Ireland. I also associate myself with what was said about the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who is an old friend as well as a very wise bird.
The key to the critical things that have been said tonight is: "There is no need to do this." Alas, I disagree: there is not only a need, but a requirement on me by law, because it appears to me—that is the language of the legislation— that the talks have been suspended. That is what it says in the Act.
I could have said that this was one of the adjournments that happen from Friday to Friday or even over the Christmas holidays, and that it was plainly not a

suspension; but I have had to take a number of factors into account. I have had to take into account all relevant factors.
Those factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that this is a period of adjournment—so expressed, as I made clear in my opening speech—of some three months. It is intended not to see us over the period from one week to the next, or over a holiday period, but to enable us to overcome a difficulty that can now properly be described as an impasse. During that period, there will be a change of Parliament, and there will constitutionally be a change of Government, although whether there is a further Conservative Government or a Labour Government remains to be seen.
Those questions led me to conclude, after careful thought, that this was not one of those adjournments that were simply adjournments and not suspensions; this was a suspension. That being the case, it is imposed on me by law that I withdraw from effect the provisions of the Act that bring into force a forum.

Mr. William Ross: This House adjourns every year from July to October. Why does it not suspend itself if it were a question just of the length of time?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: This House is not subject to a constitutional statute that speaks of suspension. The talks process is in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act and is subject to such a statute. It does not fall to anyone to determine whether the House is suspended. It falls to people to decide whether it has been adjourned. There are adjournments and adjournments in the context of the Act. That is why I have had to introduce the motion—it is imposed on me by law.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the amiable suggestion that I introduced the motion because the IRA told me to do so. At this time of night, I will allow that to speak for itself. He also thought that it might be because the forum would continue and come out with something uncomfortable. I have made it perfectly clear why I have had to introduce the motion.
I warmly endorse what has been said—and the manner in which it has been said—about the desirability of the Social Democratic and Labour party rejoining, if and when the forum is resumed, as it will be if there is a Conservative Government after the election. I repeat what I have said about, on balance, the value of the forum's work. It would be much better if the SDLP were able to resume.
I am grateful for the way in which this matter has been debated. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
The draft order will continue in force for 12 months, from 16 June, the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. The Act comprises a range of provisions, almost all of them temporary, which supplement the ordinary criminal law for the purposes of combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. It provides the police and the Army in Northern Ireland with specific operational powers to assist them in successfully deterring and disrupting terrorist attacks, and to enable them to bring to justice the perpetrators of serious terrorist crime. It also strengthens the criminal justice systems in certain important respects.
In particular, the Act provides for the Diplock system of non-jury trial, with its associated safeguards; for the classification of certain offences as terrorist offences unless certified otherwise by the Attorney-General; for the police and Army in certain circumstances to have powers of stop, arrest, search, entry and seizure beyond those found in ordinary criminal law; for roads to be closed; for offences against public security and public order; for the detention of terrorist suspects without trial, although that particular power is currently lapsed; for the regulation of the provision of private security services, historically a sector in which terrorists have been active; and for the special regime that operates in the police holding centres, where terrorist suspects are interviewed. The Act also provides for independent scrutiny of military complaints procedures.
I should remind the House of events as they unfolded during the early part of 1996, because it was against that background that the emergency provisions Act, then a Bill, passed through its parliamentary stages. I shall not list the atrocities. Hon. Members remember them vividly. They remember the two innocent people murdered at South Quay. They remember the people injured there, at Aldwych and in Manchester. They know that, as a result of those atrocities, many more lives were blighted for ever by terrorist thugs who think that they will get what they want by killing, maiming and bullying.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of his recital of those events, and bearing in mind the fact that in our perception the ceasefire was a sham, will the Minister accept, on behalf of his fellow Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland, our congratulations on having given a sharp educational lecture to Senator Kennedy when he suggested that Sinn Fein could come into talks straight away, without a credible ceasefire?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for those remarks. I can always count on my right hon.—perhaps I should add "and learned"—Friend to give sharp lectures when they are appropriate and needed.
Under cover of darkness, the terrorists continued their nightly punishment attacks, and behind the scenes they continued to train, to organise and to plan more evil.
Then, on 7 October, the provisional IRA detonated two car bombs, one shortly after the other and without a warning, inside Thiepval barracks, Lisburn. Thirty-eight people were injured, and Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. More recently, Lance-Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the provisional IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook.
Those incidents are notable on account of the casualties; they are also notable in another respect. The Thiepval bombing illustrates the provisional IRA's callousness in deliberately placing the second bomb outside the medical centre—the one place that, as a result of the first bomb, could be guaranteed to be crowded with the injured and those attending to them.
The Bessbrook incident, a sniper attack at a vehicle checkpoint, illustrates starkly the provisional IRA's complete disregard of the general public, and of anything or anyone that gets in their way. Even schoolchildren merit no special consideration. Only yesterday, security forces recovered two mark 16 mortars close to a school in Derrylin, County Fermanagh. There are countless other similar examples.
In January and February this year, serious terrorist attacks were occurring at the rate of one every three or four days—and that does not include attacks aborted or thwarted. Already this year there have been two deaths, including the brutal murder of Mr. John Slane last Friday at his home in Belfast.
Here I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported as always by their family members, and to the armed forces, to whom the people of these islands owe so much. Their professionalism is reflected in the considerable catalogue of successes achieved against the terrorists in recent months.
Repeatedly, terrorist operations have been prevented, some at advanced stages of preparation, weapons have been recovered and arrests made. Last December, for example, five significant finds of arms were made. Nine such finds were made in January, eight in February, and four in the first week of this month. Since the beginning of January, there have been 155 arrests in connection with terrorist crime, and 57 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences. Several terrorist operations have been disrupted at an advanced stage.
Among the significant quantity of weaponry recovered since the end of November are 17 mortars and rocket launchers, over 5,000 lb of explosives and a number of firearms, including several automatic weapons and nearly 2,500 rounds of ammunition.
Several of these finds would not have been possible were it not for the special powers that the emergency provisions Act provides—powers to search, for example, or to stop. There can be no doubt that lives have been saved because of successful security forces operations, and because the security forces can rely on the emergency powers.

Mr. Phil Gallic: My right hon. Friend referred to a number of successes achieved by our armed services.
Does he agree that the armed services are always working on a knife edge, and that they never know when danger will strike? On that basis, does he agree that their performance has been absolutely superb? Is it not remarkable that so few errors of judgment have been made over many years by members of our armed services who have perhaps acted marginally out of line with their instructions?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. I understand the special interest that he espouses in connection with the skills of our armed forces serving in Northern Ireland.
Special provisions of the kind contained in the Emergency Provisions Act have been in place in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s. Successive Governments have felt them necessary, and successive Parliaments have voted to keep the provisions. As the House is only too well aware, in the intervening period the people of Northern Ireland have experienced only a brief respite in the evil campaign, which, but for their resilience and successive Governments' resolve, would have destroyed the fabric of their society.
The Government have consistently said that their aim is to see the emergency powers dismantled, and that the powers will remain only for as long as they are necessary to counter terrorism. It is important that emergency powers of the kind I have described are regularly reviewed and questions asked about whether they continue to be needed and about whether they have been used fairly and properly, as Parliament intended.
For this reason, the Act incorporates a mechanism to ensure that it is reviewed annually. To inform the House's debate this evening, we shall rely on the report published earlier this month by Mr. John Rowe QC, the independent reviewer of the operation of the Act during 1996.
I take this opportunity to say that the Government are especially grateful to Mr. Rowe, who, at short notice, completed his review and produced his report to a much more constrained time scale than normal to accommodate this year's curtailed parliamentary calendar. Mr. Rowe has examined both the use made of the various provisions of the Act against the background of the prevailing security situation in Northern Ireland and their utility in terms of deterrence since it came into effect in August last year.
Mr. Rowe's conclusion is unequivocal:
Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more of it.
He adds—and the House will, I know, be reassured by this—that, so far as he can see, the provisions of the Act have been used fairly and carefully and he has not seen any examples of abuse, nor has he been told of any.
Mr. Rowe notes:
During the course of my reviews of the PTA and EPA I am reminded that the United Kingdom is bound by the Treaty obligations of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which require national laws to comply with principles and standards regarding the rights of individuals".
He adds that these make specific provision for arrest according to law, and proper judicial and trial procedures, and they should be borne in mind when considering whether the emergency legislation has been used fairly and properly.
Mr. Rowe goes on:
I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights. A State must have a right to protect itself, but the means of protection may limit the freedom of the individual.
In addition to the invaluable role performed by Mr. Rowe, we are fortunate to have the services of a number of other distinguished independent observers, who monitor particular areas of the emergency legislation. I am happy to say that the recently published reports of the independent commissioners for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Bill Norris, and of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, Mr. David Hewitt, provide further reassurance that the emergency powers are not being abused.
For the fourth successive year, the independent commissioners have said that they have found nothing to give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by uniformed officers at the holding centres. For his part, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures notes the continuing low level of formal, non-criminal complaints against the Army—24 in 1996—despite the increase in Army patrolling in response to the renewed threat.
The Government share Mr. Rowe's view that the provisions are still needed. They accept his conclusions, and urge the House to continue the Act in force for a further 12 months. Against the background of South Quay, the current Act—then a Bill—completed its parliamentary stages. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, drafted against a peacetime scene, has a lifespan of two years.
Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, following the Provisional IRA's renewed campaign, there were calls for the Act's lifespan to be extended. The Government resisted, in the hope that sense would prevail and the ceasefire would be restored—a genuine ceasefire. They had already requested Lord Lloyd of Berwick to consider the future need for counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The lifespan of two years would allow the Government to consider Lord Lloyd's recommendations for proposals for a new legislative framework.
In the event, Lord Lloyd reported in October 1996, against the background of the intensifying campaign by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. He has said that, even if there were lasting peace in Northern Ireland, permanent counter-terrorism legislation would be needed to meet the threat of other kinds of terrorism, both domestic and international. He makes a series of other recommendations, all of which assume lasting peace.
The Government acknowledge the considerable contribution that Lord Lloyd makes, against the climate he was asked to assume, but as announced to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 20 February in a written answer to a parliamentary question, in the continuing absence of a lasting peace, the Government believe it is too early to reach a firm view on possible fundamental legislative change.
We hope sincerely that there will be a renewed and permanent cessation of violence, which would enable us to re-open Lord Lloyd's idea of a new legislative


framework for combating terrorism. Meanwhile, the Government intend to produce in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on terrorist finances, along the lines of Lord Lloyd's helpful analysis.
The Government continue, through the talks process currently adjourned until 3 June, to seek to secure a comprehensive political settlement, which would take account of the different aspirations of the two traditions in Northern Ireland. We seek to establish political institutions that command cross-community acceptance and thus to remove all excuses for those who would pursue political change by means of violence.
With the notable exception of Sinn Fein, which has excluded itself from the talks process, representatives of all political parties successful in the elections held on 30 May last year are working with the Government and the Irish Government to help to bring about a lasting political solution. Sinn Fein knows what it must do to get to that table. It must realise that democracy imposes obligations: it is not all rights.
Now is not the time for the House to divide on an issue such as this. I urge Opposition Members to vote with the Government tonight to continue in force the provisions of the Act and in doing so to send a clear message to the terrorists: "You haven't gone away. Nor have we. You must rethink your strategy, because we will never give in to violence. By violence, you will continue to achieve nothing. You should end it now."

Mr. Tony Worthington: May I pay tribute at the outset to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)? I believe that the following debate will be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Being on the Front Bench and having responsibility for security is not in the normal run of political experience, and I pay tribute to him for his unfailing courtesy and helpfulness. His respect and admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security services were evident in his speech: he has come to have a deep respect for those at the sharp end in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that they will hold him in deep respect for the contribution that he has made.
In the present circumstances, there might be a tendency, especially at this time of night, to nod through the continuance order and move on to other matters, but that would be wrong, because of the importance of the issues and because it would certainly be discourteous to the advisers to whom the Minister referred, who have invested a great deal of time in considering how the legislation has operated.
As the Minister said, we are aided by four pieces of research: the Lloyd review; J. J. Rowe's report; the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Norris, the independent commissioners for the holding centres; and Mr. Hewitt's work as the independent assessor of military complaints procedure. The most important, ultimately, will be the Lloyd review.
This is not a criticism, because we did not make the point at the time, but in retrospect it seems unfortunate that the Lloyd review's terms of reference were so predicated on the continuation of the ceasefire. When the ceasefire did not continue, the tendency was to think that the review was not immediately relevant; that is not so.
In setting up the review we had the knowledge that terrorism is endemic in the modern world; we want legislation that responds to that fact. Unfortunately, the threat of all kinds of terrorism may be there in perpetuity. We should also remember that terrorism, using the definition of it as the use of violence for political ends, continued during the ceasefire.
The Government's response to Lloyd has been disappointing. Lord Lloyd himself said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice.
Of course we all hope that there will be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, but if there is not, what have the Government learnt from the Lloyd review which would lead to a change in the legislation? One of Lord Lloyd's useful contributions was to formulate a set of principles about anti-terrorist legislation.
Lord Lloyd said that legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to the ordinary criminal law and procedure and that additional statutory offences and powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat; and that, as the Minister acknowledged, such measures must strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual.
Lord Lloyd said further that the need for additional safeguards should be considered alongside any additional powers and that the law should comply with the United Kingdom's obligations in international law. Those are useful yardsticks against which to judge the Emergency Provisions Act.
I found J. J. Rowe's assessment of the working of the EPA disappointing this year. I understand the constraints to which the Minister referred, but it is a thin document and often simply describes background events or the contents of the Act. There is little that is analytical or reflective. For example, nothing is said about internment, except that the power should remain lapsed. However, let me take particularly the section on scheduling.
Scheduling takes an offender into the Diplock court procedure rather than into the normal criminal court procedure. We and others in the past have suggested that instead of cases being automatically scheduled unless the Attorney-General certifies them out, the presumption should be that they would normally be dealt with by the criminal courts unless certified in to the abnormal procedure of the Diplock courts. Rowe says
I do not think that the time has yet arrived when this can occur".
However, appendix D of the report shows that a remarkable change has occurred between 1990 and 1996.
In 1990, 51 per cent. of 908 offences were taken out of scheduling. In 1996, 85 per cent. of 1,522 offences were taken out of the Diplock procedure and out of scheduling by the Attorney-General. Unless I have misread it totally, that seems significant. However, the matter is even more significant than that. The principal characteristic of the Diplock courts is that the judge sits without a jury to avoid intimidation of jurors, but in 1996, out of 170 offenders, 128 pleaded guilty. Those people were dealt with under


the Diplock procedure, so in a sense, the services of a jury would not have been necessary anyway. Only 42 people pleaded not guilty, of whom 21 were found not guilty.
Although J. J. Rowe seems not to have noticed, the Attorney-General appears to have moved to certifying in. Only a tiny number of people in the Diplock procedure would need juries because 75 per cent. of the offenders involved pleaded guilty. It is almost as if the Attorney-General has taken the suggestions that we have been making—and we are not against this—and is moving the procedure away from the Diplock system.
I have a question about waiting times. With smaller numbers, waiting times for trials have fallen slightly, but the average time from remand to committal is 27 weeks, or just over six months. The average wait for trial, as far as one can tell from the figures, is 45 weeks, or just under a year. Averages can conceal a great deal. Would it not be valuable to include in the statistics the spread of times that people waited? We should know the maximum and minimum times waited for trial, and not only the average figure. The average seems large, although movement is in the right direction.
I commend Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and the assistant commissioner, Mr. Norris, for their report on the operation of holding centres. It is a model of what Parliament needs to consider—whether we need holding centres and what their regime should be. When Sir Louis Blom-Cooper pays tribute to the RUC by saying that over four years
we have found nothing that might have given the public of Northern Ireland the slightest concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by officers at the Holding Centres",
we have confidence in his statement because the rest of the report is so questioning and probing.
Can the Minister give us answers to the following questions set up by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report? Just what plans do the Government have—just what plans are the Government leaving—about the future of Castlereagh holding centre? This is the fourth time that Sir Louis has said that it should be closed. He has said:
We think the time has come, if it has not long since passed, when Castlereagh must go and go today and not tomorrow. We find it intolerable that the substandard conditions at Castlereagh should disfigure a system which, in almost every respect, conforms to the required standards of treatment for detainees.
Sir Louis says that even if a new building is not planned, as he believes that there should be—probably for joint use with a new police station—it would be better to close Castlereagh now that the numbers are so much reduced and use Gough barracks and Strand Road. The Government should have a position on that.
Why have the Government been so slow on the issue of silent video recording? The Secretary of State said on 12 June 1995 that he intended to introduce electronic recording. That is not far off two years ago. We considered the Report stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 19 February 1996, exactly 13 months ago, so why has the consultation period only just come to an end on a code of practice on silent video recording? No installation of the equipment has taken place yet.
When will Sir Louis and the rest of us receive a reasoned answer to his proposals on the circumstances in which disclosure of audio tapes could be allowed?
He made detailed proposals for safeguards. Silent video recording is restricted in what it can tell you. Sir Louis in his report used a football analogy about what one can tell about what might have been said by one person to another during a football incident. One cannot tell accurately what was said. Audio recording would be much more useful. It has particular appeal because it would deal smartly with the problems associated—the Minister will remember our interchanges in previous discussions on the Bill—with what is known as the voir dire argument and would save weeks of court time. Is it not time that Sir Louis had an answer to his proposals?
I should like to put to the Minister a couple of points made by the independent assessor of military complaints in his report. Mr. David Hewitt remits his post at the end of this month. I sincerely thank him for his work, which has been valuable to us. We thank him in particular for the work that he did in 1993 and 1994 in revising the complaints procedures. He pays tribute, with which I concur, to the Army for improving its procedures. I have only one question and it relates to appendix C, but Mr. Hewitt does not concern himself about it in his text. There is a large difference between the number of informal complaints lodged against 3 Brigade, as compared to 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. In 1996, there were 192 informal complaints against 3 Brigade, compared with 36 each against 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. What were the reasons for that? I appreciate that there may be reasons of geography, or the tensions of the time, although the complaints seem to be fairly well spread throughout the year.
I regret that I have raised so many issues on the Minister's last day at the Dispatch Box, but he would not have expected anything else of me. They are important issues, in terms of justice and civil liberties. Even if the Minister cannot fully answer the points that I have raised today, I have at least told the civil service the questions that an incoming Labour Government will want to have answered.
We shall not vote against the order because it is important to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to respond to the points that I have raised.

Rev. Ian Paisley: First, I offer the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the good wishes of my colleagues and myself as he retires from the House. It is one thing to resign one's seat; it is another to fight and lose; but it is a far worse thing when the boundary commission destroys one's seat and takes it away. I do not know whether in his mind there is a feeling that it is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of him altogether from the House, but we wish him well and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland would join us in that.
The Government and the security forces will ignore at their peril the warning contained in John Rowe's report on the annual review of the Emergency Provisions Act. On page seven, he says that, since the end of the IRA ceasefire,
there has been a marked increase in the level of terrorist activity, both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I am particularly dealing with Northern Ireland; activity there is attributable to terrorists on both sides.


There have been deaths caused by explosion, firearm attacks and assaults. Indeed, within a few days before the writing of this, a British soldier was killed by a sniper's bullet at Bessbrook.
There are persistent serious attacks on the security forces. There is the regular movement and preparation of firearms and munitions; and searches reveal such things. Robberies are carried out for the purpose of funding terrorist organisations. In preparation for terrorist attacks like these, ordinary dwellinghouses are taken over by terrorists, who intimate the householders.
Terrorist organisations maintain their structure and influence. There is intimidation of local communities and businesses, and there is overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law. Paramilitary 'punishment' assaults take place regularly.
That is a solemn comment on what is happening in Northern Ireland at this very moment.
In the past fortnight, our Province has tasted more of the IRA's unremitting evil. On Friday, a terrorist bomb seriously injured soldiers and police personnel in east Belfast. Seven days before, soldiers to the west of the city escaped another Provisional IRA bomb. On Friday, a Roman Catholic man was shot dead in his home. Only by the mercy of God have many other attempts on the lives of soldiers and civilians failed to produce the number of casualties the IRA has planned for our Province.
There are some credulous people who publicly suggest that those bombing failures are, in fact, planned failures and that the IRA is in some way planning to miss its targets in a phoney war to keep its more militant members happy. I have never listened to such nonsense being spoken about the ruthless and murderous intent of the IRA. Anyone who believes that the IRA is not intent on mass destruction should take a few minutes to go to the spot in Bessbrook that marks the place where young Stephen Restorick met his death—brutally murdered by the IRA on Ulster's frontier with the Irish Republic.
Many more soldiers, police officers and civilians will be sacrificed in a war with terrorism that should have been won years ago. John Rowe's firm conclusion is that the EPA is still required on the statute book, but I urge the Government—whatever Government are in power—to take the next vital step and start enforcing those measures, so that they have a greater effect against the terrorist.
I welcome the success that the security services have had. I notice that several terrorist suspects have been brought to the courts on serious charges, resulting from arrests in west Belfast last week; I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that in certain areas the IRA has been put under pressure and hunted down. However, I believe that its members must be targeted for round-the-clock surveillance and they must be caught and put behind bars for a long time. These people will not be reformed. They are murderers and intend to murder, and they must be punished as such.
I join others in the House in paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, to the members of Her Majesty's forces and to all who serve the community to give us protection. I also pay a tribute to people who are often forgotten—the dear mother who, every morning, says goodbye to her husband and lover, the father of her children, not knowing what will happen during the day. Many members of my church serve in the security forces and I know how mothers feel, how wives feel, and especially how children feel when their Dad goes out in answer to the call of duty. Those are the really brave people in Northern Ireland, whose voice is seldom heard, who soldier on from day to day. I lay a wreath of tribute to them tonight.
The Government have embarked on a course that I feel is a tragedy: they believe that they can woo the men of violence. I think they will live to regret it. Already, the IRA has made fools of the British and Irish Governments and of the American Government. I spoke to Bill Clinton when he was in Belfast. He thought that he had the IRA converted and he thought, because Gerry Adams had shaken his hand on the Falls road and he had received such a good reception at the city hall, that it was all settled and he would go home as another saint. Of course, the nationalists would have protested at having a St. Bill or a St. William; that would not have been in keeping with their vocabulary.
I said to Bill Clinton, "You would not bring the murderers from Oklahoma to the White House. You would not shake hands with them. You would not say, 'Keep your guns.' You would not say, 'There is a place for you in government.'" Says I, "What do you think of me? You've said you want to know how an Ulsterman ticks. How I tick is the way you would tick. You would kick me out of this room if I suggested such things. Well, I feel like kicking you out of the room when you shake hands with Gerry Adams, his hands stained with the blood of five of my European constituents who lost their lives in the Shankhill road."
The IRA has played one phoney ceasefire on the Government and would like to do so again. I trust that no British Government will be fooled again, because all the IRA wants is to attain its goal. Let not the people of the Irish Republic think that members of the IRA are their friends, for what they would do in Northern Ireland they will do in the south of Ireland to get their way.
The IRA campaign is tragically for real. The IRA is not interested in peace; it is interested only in total victory for itself. A Government who do not realise that to be the case will feel it their duty to protect the citizens of this kingdom. The attendant facets of terrorism continue with unrelenting accuracy. They are targeting for murder, paramilitary beatings, money laundering, racketeering and all manner of criminal activity, including the drug business, destroying youth and children.
Any society that has been threatened by the level of criminal violence witnessed in Ulster during the past three decades must protect itself in the most meaningful way that it can.
A great deal has been done to alleviate the position of those who have been charged with terrorist offences. I know that conditions, for instance, in the Castlereagh holding centre are not great; but I know worse conditions in which our soldier boys and police men are serving tonight. I have seen how some of them do not even have their own beds. They get out of bed and another man gets into it. I think we should get our priorities right: we should first look after the men who are doing the job on the ground for us.
Anti-terrorist legislation is vital. All too often it is misinterpreted as anti-civil liberties. The fact is that it is in place to uphold our civil liberties—the liberties of the peaceful majority against the murderous evil of terrorism. I want the powers that we have to be effectively used. Some time ago a television documentary programme carried out an investigation into the activities of Martin McGuinness. He is going to be a "respectable" candidate at the election, standing against my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).
After the documentary's revelations, I called for McGuinness's arrest; so did many other hon. Members. Was he ever questioned for directing terrorism? Was he ever taken to a police station or to Castlereagh? It would not suit the Government to take a leading republican such as Mr. McGuinness. There would be an outcry. Indeed, there was a outcry recently when bail was not granted to a prisoner in this country. I heard a Member of the European Parliament from the south of Ireland tell Europe that she, the prisoner, was being tortured in a London gaol!
We need to be tough on terrorists, whichever side of the fence they come from. The Government must be more creative in pursuit of republican terrorism—and all terrorism. They should use the measures at their disposal instead of just threatening to use them. What is the use of the Act if it is not used? It just becomes an annual farce, not an annual renewal.

Mr. William Ross: I echo the regret expressed by others that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is having, perforce, to leave the House. It is an unfortunate fact that before someone can come here, he must have a constituency; in that constituency he has to get folk to vote for him; and the right hon. Gentleman managed both things—but just as he was getting settled in, finding a useful job to do in Northern Ireland, along came the boundary commission and swept his constituency away.
The very opposite applies in Northern Ireland, of course. At the behest of the Dublin authorities, people run around changing the boundaries to ensure that some Members of this House who rarely attend can remain in it.
Many of us have come to know and respect the right hon. Gentleman. We regret his leaving, and the fact that other constituencies did not have the good wit to take him aboard. He would have been an asset in any new Conservative Government responsible for Northern Ireland. If the Conservatives are elected again, they will face a certain difficulty in the Northern Ireland Office— most of its occupants seem to be going, going or gone.
My eye, like that of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), was caught by chapter 3 of Mr. Rowe's report. I shall not weary the House by reading out what the hon. Gentleman has already read out; but I was surprised to see Mr. Rowe talk about dwellings being taken over by terrorists who intimidate the householders without going on to point out that cars were clearly stolen to order by the same terrorists. Sometimes, cars turn up with false number plates. They are usually the same colour and often the same make as cars that are sitting 20, 30 or 50 miles away. The idea that the attacks mounted by the IRA are put up on the spur of the moment is blown out of the window by that fact alone.
We also have the statement at the bottom of page 7 that
There is intimidation … and there is the overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law.
When the Minister opened the debate, he drew attention to the Diplock courts. I am surprised that Mr. Rowe did not mention that one of the reasons why we have Diplock

courts is that the IRA would not only intimidate witnesses; it would murder jurors who dared to find IRA members guilty. People who think that members of the jury could hide away in a society as small as Northern Ireland are wrong: they could not. While I believe that many people would serve honestly in juries, others simply would not be willing to do so, because of the fear that would be caused to them and the dangers to their families while they were doing that work.
In that chapter, we see clear hints of the methods that the terrorist organisations use. But there is more to it than that. They not only use those methods; they take care to terrorise first the Roman Catholic population. If some of them are prepared to stand up against them, they are eliminated or intimidated into silence and acquiesence with the IRA and its activities. Once they have finished with the Roman Catholic population and had it silenced or moved out, they attack the Protestant and Unionist population.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment?
The terrorist organisations carry out attacks on Protestant and Unionist property for two reasons: first, to create a Republican ghetto, in which they are left in complete control; and, secondly, to raise the temperature. We had two such incidents last night: one in Bellaghy, which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) knows well, where an Orange hall was burnt; and a second in Clough, where another Orange hall was burnt. There has not been too much of that during the past few months, but it is now on the up, to ensure that the temperature rises.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I just mention that that was clearly seen in the murder of young Stephen Restorick? The woman who was beside him when he was shot has come under so much threat that when a memorial service was held in Bessbrook, the young boy's mother and father could not invite her, as she would be under more threat. One can have no stronger threat than that: people being intimidated when they go to a memorial service for a person whom the IRA has murdered.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's remarks will no doubt be heard and, I hope, absorbed by the few people in the House to hear them. I have other personal knowledge of the intimidation that has been practised on Roman Catholics.
The horror is that, for the past 25 years, the Northern Ireland Office has treated IRA-Sinn Fein as if it was simply another political pressure group that will at some time reach a compromise deal. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has sadly left the Chamber, went down the same foolish path as he often goes down, when he insinuated that there is an economic and social solution. The same concept breaks through the surface periodically whenever people talk about doves and hawks in the IRA. I have always believed that those people are all hawks. I have never believed the soft words and crocodile tears that we get from people such as Mr. Adams. Those people are the best of actors; they would all have been worthy of an Oscar, had they gone into films. They are not in films, however; they are in


murder. That is what they are about. They use every concession as a stepping stone. They do not look upon a concession given to them as a way of edging towards an agreement. They look upon those who give them concessions as bloody fools; then they seize the concession and say, "What's next?" They immediately stop talking about what they have been given—that fades into that past—and they move on to their next demand.
Reference has been made to the events of last summer. We should compare that with what has emerged over the months since, especially in the Prime Time TV programme, in which it was revealed that the entire confrontation on the streets of Northern Ireland had been planned by the IRA for three years. It did not drop out of the blue. It was not genuine protest by residents. It had been planned for three years, in the words of Mr. Adams himself. He subsequently complained, because the world saw what he said.
There has been much talk about processions in Northern Ireland. It is surprisingly difficult to get proper figures as to what sort of processions they are. The police list them as loyalist, republican and other. I can think of many different organisations in the broad unionist community, some of which might describe themselves as loyalist, but others would not. I can also think of organisations that might not be too happy to be labelled republican because of the connotations that that term has acquired in Northern Ireland over the years.
There was a parade through my local village of Dungiven on Monday—a perfectly peaceful parade. I am not sure whether those people would each or all describe themselves as republicans. They have had their own troubles with Sinn Fein, IRA and their fellow travellers down the years. I hope that when the police compile statistics in future, they will be rather more precise, so that we can see who is marching, where they are marching and what it is all about.
I also hope that the House and hon. Members on the two Front Benches will learn the simple fact that IRA-Sinn Fein already has its targets chosen for street confrontation in 1997.
The Minister is right. The IRA has not gone away. It never went away. It simply threw a fairly thin smokescreen round itself. Some people were foolish enough to believe that, but we on this Bench were never among those who believed what the IRA said. We have lived among IRA members, we know them and we have had to put up with their horrors, in the present case for nearly 30 years. Some of us in the B Specials, such as myself, in the 1956–61 campaign went out and fought them in the roads, controlled the roads and beat them. I believe that they could be beaten again.
The campaign has been running so long and its roots have now run so deep that there is no easy answer. The first bitter lesson that hon. Members on the two Front Benches and the Northern Ireland Office as an official body must learn is that the IRA is constantly intent on trouble. It has no interest in peace. The reason for its existence is to cause trouble, to create constitutional change in Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. So many people for so long have ignored that simple fact.
I believe that in the coming year, whatever Government are in power, whoever the Ministers are and whoever the Chief Constable is in Northern Ireland, they can do

nothing more than select the path that diminishes the possibility of violence and keeps it containable. They will not achieve that by doing what the police did last year.
The legislation is necessary. As the Americans found out when dealing with the Mafia and its drugs and thuggery, normal law is not enough in some instances. It is not enough when one is dealing with a terrorist organisation of the type that we face in Northern Ireland. It is not enough to bring peace. The extra muscle embodied in the legislation is needed.
The IRA will not sit down peacefully at any table to discuss the future of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not interested in peace. It is interested, as has been said, in victory. It must be convinced, and it is not yet convinced, that it will not be victorious. It must be brought to the conclusion that it will not succeed. If that happens, it will vanish, as it has vanished before. Its numbers will diminish, as will its power, and we shall have peace again. That will not come about while we have the nonsense that so often fills the air in Northern Ireland and across the Chamber.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister of State, who introduced the debate, has attracted expressions of good will from both sides of the House, and I associate myself with them. Those of us who have not been Members for Northern Ireland cannot know and understand how different Members' responsibilities are there. Perhaps more compellingly, those of us who have not been Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office almost certainly cannot appreciate the particular burdens, obligations and responsibilities that service in that office undoubtedly creates. I express my good will to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, who was in the Chamber only a short while ago. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have served in the Northern Ireland Office with great distinction and great dignity.
It seems that there will not be a Division on the order. If there had been a Division, in accordance with the practice of my right hon. and hon. Friends for many years, I should have advised them to vote for the order. I and they would not do so with great enthusiasm, but rather because I regard the order as a regrettable necessity. I would vote for the order with considerable reservations because I profoundly believe that the rights, protections and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live, and that only in the most unusual circumstances can a departure from those principles be justified.
On the evidence that we have heard so far, some of it rather chilling, and on the basis of our own knowledge, we are entitled to conclude that the circumstances still obtaining in Northern Ireland justify once again the renewal of the order. Those circumstances justify powers that in other circumstances would undoubtedly be regarded as draconian. These powers should not be maintained for an instant longer than is necessary. They should be grudgingly tolerated. We in this place, and our successors, should work with all the power available to us to withdraw them at the earliest possible date. They represent a serious incursion into the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom, which they are entitled to expect wherever they live.
Why is it that the powers continue to be justified? That is the position only because it appears that the cancer of terrorism lies still at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. The powers contained in the order will not eliminate that cancer; at the very best they may contain it. Unless and until a political settlement that commands the support of the entire community of Northern Ireland is achieved, we are likely fo face the sort of terrorist activity that so affects our judgment of these issues.
Before us is an issue to which we shall clearly return— those of us who are here—in the next Parliament. I understand that new primary legislation will be required. I express the hope that that legislation will not be treated simply as a routine repeat of the primary legislation that gives rise to the order that we are discussing. When that legislation is considered, it will be regarded with public confidence only if it is appropriate to the circumstances of the time.
For the moment, the order should command our support. Indeed, it would be most curious if at this stage of the Parliament the House were to reject it for any reason. That would be akin to Alice in Wonderland. I divine from the speeches so far that that is not likely to happen, but the fact that we have to deal with this each year reminds us that what we are doing is of great significance, and it is something that will have quite startling and significant consequences for the civil rights of a large number of members of the United Kingdom. We should never do it lightly, but in the circumstances that prevail, I believe that we are compelled to continue to renew the provisions of the order.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief. My speech is prompted by Mr. Rowe's report. I should like to ask the Minister a question, but before I do, I offer him my compliments. In my dealings with him, he has always responded in a most courteous and helpful way, and I know that I will receive a courteous response this evening. As one who hopes to return to this place in a few weeks' time, I would like him to know that he may have gone but he will not be forgotten.
My view has always been that those convicted in our courts of acts of violence should receive condign punishment. Not so very long ago, at the High Court in Glasgow, I think—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) might correct me on this—a loyalist terrorist was found guilty, rightly and properly, and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for arms trafficking. He was attempting to run arms across to Northern Ireland. A few years ago, when I was on the review committee of a prison in Scotland, twice in about seven months I interviewed two prisoners, both of whom were under assessment for release under licence and had been sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment for running arms across to Northern Ireland, so I have a little experience of these matters.
I remind the Minister that he quoted from paragraph 2, page 5, of Mr. Rowe's report, which says:
I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a young woman who is detained in a London prison, and said that an MEP had claimed that this young woman had been subjected to torture. That is an absurd claim, I believe that the circumstances surrounding her detention leave much to be desired. In my view, when a person suspected of acts of terrorism is arrested and detained, they should be treated in a way that does not infringe their basic human rights.
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, in Cornton Vale prison in Scotland, when a pregnant woman prisoner has her baby, she is certainly not manacled at any time before, during or after the birth. She is allowed, if she has the wherewithal psychologically and physically, to take care of her child for 12 months. At the end of that period, for understandable reasons, the child is sent to carefully chosen foster parents—and I mean carefully chosen—or to the family of the detained woman. I say to all hon. Members, including the Minister, that that treatment should be afforded to Roisin McAliskey in Holloway prison. It know that it is outwith the Minister's terms of reference, but I hope that he will bring my remarks to the attention of his right hon. Friends.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: I shall give way in a minute.
I have no truck with those involved in such dastardly activities. That young woman is a remand prisoner. In a Scottish prison, such as Cornton Vale, she would be treated differently. I have written to Mr. Richard Tilt telling him that. I have also written to The Irish Times, because one of its journalists, in a recent article on Ms McAliskey's unsuccessful bail application, thrice referred to the British prison system. I pointed out to the editor of The Irish Times that his journalist should have referred to the English prison system, because there is an important different between the two systems. A pregnant woman would be treated differently in Cornton Vale prison, irrespective of the crime of which she is suspected or convicted.
It is in the interests of the child that he or she should not be separated from the mother, whatever she has done. As long as the child's safety is regarded by everyone as paramount—I need hardly say that to this audience—a woman remand prisoner or a woman prisoner who has been convicted in a court of law should be afforded the same treatment as would be afforded to one of my constituents who may have committed a heinous crime.
I am making no excuses for this young woman, but her treatment, as it is portrayed in the international media, gives valuable ammunition to primitive republicans everywhere. I was talking to someone in Australia.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House knows that I do not mind passing references to matters that go slightly wide of the issue under consideration, but the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on this point, and it goes beyond the scope of our considerations.

Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: May I finish my apologies to Madam Deputy Speaker? I have said before that you are renowned


for your gentle strictures, and I shall not risk another one so close to the end of this Parliament. I just want to say that in my view this young woman should be transferred to the prison in Northern Ireland that has mother-child facilities.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I hope that he does not get me into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he is a terrible man.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The prisons in Northern Ireland and their treatment of prisoners are excellent. I have acted as a prison chaplain, and I have also been a prisoner, so I should know. I was passing no strictures on the circumstances of the case. I was simply saying that a southern Ireland MEP said that the treatment was virtually torture, which was completely and totally untrue.

Dr. Godman: I know of the hon. Gentleman's prison career. I am not sure that he was ever incarcerated in a woman's prison, which would have been grossly unfair on women prisoners.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: Just let me say that I did not impugn the hon. Member for North Antrim. I said that he had referred to an MEP who had made that wild allegation.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a person who is held on an extradition warrant being transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland. I inquired about that, and my understanding is that that is not possible. The individual has to be held in either a Scottish or an English prison, such as Holloway, and cannot be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is certainly no place in the system in Northern Ireland for such a prisoner. Surely the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the holding of pregnant women in prison apply to all such prisoners in English prisons. That is the understanding that we have been given by the Minister of State, Home Office.

Dr. Godman: I am not saying that special privileges should be given to a specific prisoner who has been detained under these measures. I think that, if Scottish female prisoners are treated in such a way—rightly and properly, in my view—female prisoners south of the border should be treated in like manner. I remind the Minister, who is a decent. fair-minded man, of what he said in his speech, and of the direct quotation that he offered from Mr. Rowe's report:
I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights.
I have dwelt on the point for far too long, and I apologise for that. In this case, however, I think that there has been an infringement of basic human rights, which has provided propaganda for primitive republicans and their supporters not just in the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. As I said, I spoke to someone in Australia who expressed concern.
Of course it is right and proper for the security forces to pursue such persons with the utmost vigour, but when persons are detained they must be treated fairly and

properly in our prison systems. I believe that, whatever the technical difficulties, the best course would be to transfer Roisin McAliskey to a prison in Northern Ireland so that her child can be born there and mother and child can be together. That is the plea that I make to the Minister.

Sir John Wheeler: I shall endeavour to be brief in replying to this important debate, but it would be churlish of me not acknowledge the kind references made to me by all who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I have enjoyed responding to his numerous detailed questions over many hours in the Committee Room and elsewhere during our service on opposing Benches. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, of course, to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It has been a great privilege to serve the people of Northern Ireland, and the House, in my present capacity, and I am sorry that I am to be the first and last Member of Parliament for Westminster, North.
As I have said, this has been an important debate. All the issues that have been raised are serious. In particular, the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie gave notice to Northern Ireland Office officials of the answers that they would need to have ready should he find himself in Stormont castle in six weeks' time. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I very much agree with him about the Lloyd review and its importance to the anti-terrorist law, and the procedures that the House should consider in the next Parliament. There are indeed elements that must be considered very carefully when the next Parliament comes to consider the basis of that legislation—but that is for the future and not for this evening.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked about the certifying in of scheduled offences. Parliament has decided with good reason that, because of the situation that has existed in Northern Ireland, certain cases need to be scheduled. The Attorney-General, indeed successive Attorney-Generals, may certify out certain offences on the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions if a particular case has no connection with the emergency situation. It would be invidious for the Attorney-General, who is responsible for prosecutions, to be given powers to confer a restrictive mode of trial in particular cases instead of relieving it, as he may do at present with those cases not associated with terrorism.
A year ago, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and I exchanged our thinking about that matter in Committee. The statistical change to which he referred reflects the fact of the ceasefires. I am sure that he will be reassured that that has been the case, and it does not change the basic argument in favour of certifying out.
The hon. Gentleman asked about silent video recording. Responses to the recently concluded consultation exercise on codes of practice governing such recording are being assessed. Tests on the necessary equipment are well advanced, and I assure him that that project is being taken forward with real purpose. I am confident that his points will also be taken into account in assessing that.
Remand waiting times will require some detailed research, but it is still within my gift to undertake it, and should the hon. Gentleman be interested in the outcome during the general election campaign, I shall ensure that he has some additional reading.
As the House knows, the decision to introduce silent video recording was based on the Chief Constable's advice and it represents a compromise in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland but, as with all these things, it is certainly kept under review.
With regard to military complaints, the increase in the number of informal complaints is partly due to the Army implementing recommendations made by Mr. Hewitt at paragraph 4.3 of his current report. That is the basis for the change in those statistics.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised an issue that is not, perhaps, really the subject of the debate or within the order, but I hope that I may be allowed to comment on it briefly as he raised a matter of humanitarian importance. The Government believe that prisoners held on remand, who are innocent until proven guilty, are subject to all the proper medical care and treatment. I understand that the remand prisoner in question will be allowed to keep her baby while in prison and that proper facilities are available, but she is facing grave charges, which are accountable in Germany. That is why she must remain in Holloway prison unless a court of law determines otherwise.
Elsewhere in the debate, the hon. Member for North Antrim touched on the appearance of a Mr. Martin McGuinness in a television programme. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is never inhibited from investigating crimes and allegations, certainly not by this Minister or by Her Majesty's Government, but bases its investigation on the facts and, alas, the House will be surprised to know, not all television programmes are precisely accurate.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry made many profound remarks about terrorism and its on-going character. I greatly appreciate and agree with what he said. He made an important point about the Diplock courts, which protect jurors as well as witnesses. That is why it is essential that that procedure must continue in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, in view of the odious list of punishment attacks that occur every 24 hours.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East in that nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to say to the House, "The legislation is not necessary any more, and we can do without it." It is right that we should constantly examine the need for such legislation; that is why the House of Commons exists.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It has been an important one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisins) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

Public Order (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
In his statement to the House on 30 January, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Government welcomed the report of the independent review of parades and marches, and announced a number of measures that we would take in response to it.
The Government undertook to establish without delay an independent Parades Commission with an education, conciliation and mediation role, in time for this year's marching season. At the same time, the Government began consultation on the wider decision-making and related powers of the Parades Commission recommended by the report. That consultation will last until the end of March. The Government accepted the other recommendations of the report, and undertook to examine opportunities to implement them, including the necessary legislation.
The order will amend the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to implement some of those recommendations that do not hinge on the outcome of the current consultation exercise. The period required for notification of a parade or procession will be increased from seven to 21 days, and new controls on alcohol at parades will be introduced.
The proposal for a draft order was published on 25 February and was distributed to a wide range of individuals for consultation. In order to ensure, so far as possible, that the provisions of the draft order would be in effect before this year's marching season, it was necessary to shorten the consultation period from the usual six weeks to two weeks. Those who responded to the consultation generally welcomed the proposed measures.
Since the publication of the proposal, the Government have taken the opportunity to make two minor technical amendments, which I shall deal with now. First, we have amended article 4(5), which gives the police power to dispose of intoxicating liquor that has been surrendered. There may be circumstances in which a police officer has confiscated drink that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed to be alcoholic. To provide for such a situation, we have made an amendment to give the police power to dispose of anything that has been surrendered to them. The change mirrors an amendment made to the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill, on which the provision is broadly based.
Secondly, we have added a new article 4(10), to ensure that the time limits on the exercise of the controls on alcohol will also apply in a "stand-off situation, where persons have assembled for a parade that does not then go ahead. The amendment will mean that the confiscation powers will end at midnight on the day on which those who have assembled disperse.
I shall now deal briefly with the detailed provisions of the draft order. The current seven days' notice to be given of a public procession has been clearly shown to be


inadequate, especially for contentious parades, to give all sides maximum opportunity to discuss differences at a local level and, it is to be hoped, to come to agreement.
The order will therefore increase the period of notice from seven to 21 days. With regard to spontaneous parades, the order will provide that, where it is not reasonable to require the organisers to notify the police 21 days in advance, they may give less than 21 days' notice, but will be required to explain the reason for the short notice. The order will also require that notice is given in a standard form, which will be set out in regulations, and which must be signed by the person giving the notice.
The review team—that is the North team—noted considerable and widespread concern from all parts of the community about the problems caused by alcohol at parades, a problem that the measures contained in the draft order address. The measures make a discretionary power available to the police. Clearly, the use of the powers by the police will be dictated by the operational situation and discretion will be exercised. I am confident that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will adopt a sensible and commonsense approach to the enforcement of this measure.
In summary, the order would implement a number of the recommendations in the review team's report. I hope that we shall be able to press on with other necessary legislation to deal with any other matters raised in the report in the next Parliament, should that prove necessary after the consultation period. I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Tony Worthington: We find this to be a miserably inadequate order, but we shall support it because we recognise that its two provisions—the need to extend the period of notice to 21 days, and the need to control alcohol—are necessary. Those seem to be common sense and should be applied, but we feel that the people of Northern Ireland have been badly let down. In the words of the Secretary of State on 30 January in response to the North report:
Last summer, public disorder occurred in Northern Ireland on a very grave scale.
We now have these two small provisions, which have become the total legislative response so far by the Government to the North report. There were 43 recommendations in the North report and the Government's response is that two are to be enacted. We feel particularly aggrieved because it was obvious for so long that the Government should be reappraising how marches and parades in Northern Ireland should be conducted and controlled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was pressing from the middle of the summer of 1995 for action on this, and the Government responded only after the appalling events of last summer. They then failed to act upon the North report in full when it was published and we are now left, in effect, with two clauses as the Government's response. Any incoming Government will feel that their task has been made more difficult. As my hon. Friend said on January 30
The police were put in an impossible position. The House has a duty to do all that it can to prevent such a situation from arising again."—[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 509–10.]

That is not what the House has done.
The central recommendation of North—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, "the guts" of the report—was that there should be an adjudicatory body. That was not immediately accepted by the Government, who said that they would need further consultation. Can we hear from the Government the results of that consultation? The Government gave the impression that they were hesitant about an adjudicatory body, but will they now confirm that it is their view that there should not be such a body?
For our part, the Labour party can confirm that it is our intention to enact the North report in full. The Government promised that, in terms of the non-adjudicatory functions—the Minister confirmed this—they endorsed the report's recommendations, which they believed should be implemented without delay. We are less than a fortnight before the start of the marching season, and nothing is in place. The measures that we are considering today will not be in place for the start of the marching season, and even the 21-day rule created by this order will not be effective until the marches that will take place in the middle of May.
What has happened to the advisory commission? What is its membership? I remind the Secretary of State that he said in the House on 30 January:
The Government therefore intend to establish, as soon as possible, an independent body of five people, to be known as the Parades Commission, with the mediation, conciliation and education roles recommended in the report. We intend that the new commission should be in place ahead of this year's marching season, precisely because we recognise that it has a valuable role to play.
He said that legislation would not be required to establish the commission, so it is fair for us to ask where it is.
If there is a commission, as the Government agree, even if it is only with the mediation, conciliation and education role, it is vital that it is backed up by a statutory code of conduct. From reading Hansard of 30 January, it would seem that the Government accepted the recommendation that there should be a statutory code of conduct. They agreed that a code should be prepared and published for consultation as soon as practicable. We want to know where the code is that will apply to this year's parades.
The Government also said that consideration should be given, as recommended by North, to changes to articles 4(1)(b) and 7 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. What conclusions have they come to on that matter? They also pledged that there would be a registration scheme for bands, which would be introduced as soon as the necessary practical arrangements could be put in place. Again, what has happened to that proposal?
The Secretary of State also said:
There needs to be within all who live in Northern Ireland the will and … determination that last year's terrible events shall never again occur … the Government pledge that they will play their own part to the full."—[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 509–510.]
I hope that I can have a full response to my questions.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not yet understand that there is in Northern Ireland an organisation called the IRA and its fellow travellers, who are determined that there will not be


understanding and are totally committed to seeing that there is mayhem, violence and confrontation in the streets? So long as they are there, those events will occur.

Mr. Worthington: I understand that. We need to appreciate that many people told North that, to cope with that problem, there needed to be a better statutory framework than exists at present. That will not solve the problem of organisations dedicated to causing mayhem, but we can improve the legislative framework within which we are operating.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the head of the IRA-Sinn Fein has said that those events came about as a result of careful and deliberate planning for three years? If I stood up in Northern Ireland and said that I had planned events for three years, my feet would not hit the ground—I would be in Castlereagh. The head of the IRA-Sinn Fein was never even questioned by the police. Now, we are hearing that there will be trouble in other places where there has never been any trouble. This is an IRA-concocted way to have trouble throughout the Province.

Mr. Worthington: I respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am aware—I could not see it myself because I was here—of the programme that demonstrated that there had been planning and that Mr. Adams said that that had occurred. One also has to recognise, however, that people on the other side of the divide are convinced that similar planning will cause confrontation in the opposite direction.
The North report was instituted with our full support to try to improve the framework within which judgments about marches were made. We believe that the Government could have done more and that any incoming Government will be left in a much weaker position than they should have been because of the lack of action on the report.

Rev. William McCrea: I have listened carefully to the speeches in this important debate. It is important, because I believe that we are witnessing an attack on one group of people in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom.
Before developing my theme, I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in wishing the Minister a happy retirement. I trust that, as he has found fulfilment in serving the people of the United Kingdom, and the people of Northern Ireland in particular, he will also find it in whatever occupation he turns his hand to. The people of Northern Ireland deeply appreciate the service that he gave, and Members of Parliament have at all times found him courteous and concerned for their safety in the face of IRA terrorism. He has always shown personal concern for individual Members and their constituents.
I express my appreciation on behalf of my constituents in Mid-Ulster, because the Minister played an important role and gave support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the security forces protecting the citizens

of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in particular. I trust that he accepts the appreciation of the people of Ulster.
I am extremely concerned about the order, which is reactionary: as we have come to expect, after some agitation from republicans and others, and interference from outside Governments—from the United States of America or the Irish Republic—there has been a reaction from Government. Unfortunately, the reaction is comparable with that in the legislation on dogs, which was bad law. The order is not in the interests of the Northern Ireland community, and it will be regretted.
Once again, we are creating a nightmare. The situation that has developed is causing great concern in the community. Marches and parades have been part of the culture of the Unionist community over the years. I was raised in Arboe, where Unionists were the minority, and we had excellent relationships with the nationalists. Problems are being created that simply did not occur before. Neighbour is being turned against neighbour, and that has not simply happened: it has been carefully devised over several years.
We are approaching the marching season, and many people are talking about another Garvaghy road. Let me remind the House once again that the Orange parade that walked to the church there two years ago did so in a legitimate and lawful parade. The parade was given the authority to do that and to leave the church and go back down the Garvaghy road to the Orange hall in Portadown. They were not acting outside the law. They had legal authority to go to and from church. The route was laid out, notice was properly given and permission granted. Why are we talking about the situation? How did the order come about? Let us remember the facts.
The IRA went into the Garvaghy estate, took over some of the homes—as mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in a previous debate—and threatened the community. Many Roman Catholics were told to get out on to the streets and object to the parade. They were intimidated out, but that does not seem to matter; it was the Orangemen who were at fault. They were just coming to and from church in a proper, legal procession in an honourable and decent fashion, as they had for many years.

Mr. Roy Beggs: And none of them had had a sip of alcohol.

Rev. William McCrea: No alcohol was consumed. People were acting legally, but terrorists got involved. Their voice seems to mean more, because behind it is not just the ordinary marching of feet but the thud of a bomb or the power of a gun. That registers more. Sad to say, over the years it has registered with more authority with Governments, with those who are supposed to be protecting the community in a democracy. It seems that terrorists must be listened to, because their threat is not that of a debate in the House.
As hon. Members know, over the years, the voice of those who have exercised their democratic right of debating in the House has been little heard, and it has meant very little. We had the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the framework document. Was that the will of the people or of their elected representatives who speak on the people's behalf, and who have gone to the people to


renew their mandates? I was one of those who, after the Anglo-Irish Agreement, resigned my seat, even though Mid-Ulster has a republican majority. I was willing to resign my seat and put myself before the electorate again to ensure that the Government knew that I was speaking with the authority of the people who sent me to the House.
The people spoke; the voice of the ballot box spoke again, but the reaction was that one Minister said that it does not matter how people vote, because the Government would have it their way anyhow. So much for democracy; but terrorist gunmen can say that Orangemen, even in lawful procession, cannot go down a road because they will shoot them. Sad to say, there was a reaction to the threat of the gun. They did not have to shoot, only threaten. The community is being held to ransom.
My family knows exactly what the power of the gun of an IRA terrorist thug means. The blood of my loved ones ran in the streets and homes of the Northern Ireland, and but for the mercy of God, as the Minister knows, every one of them would have been lying dead—no thanks to the terrorists. They threaten the community.
That was what happened on the Garvaghy road. It had nothing to do with Drumcree parish church, but everything to do with murdering thugs who seem to think that they have the right to threaten the community and hold it to ransom. Why do they think that? It is because they have done it for the past 30 years and got away with it.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is because of the abject failure of successive Governments for 30 years that the outgoing Government and whichever party is the incoming Government had better recognise that the demonstration of solidarity across Northern Ireland, arising from the despicable ban on the lawful parades, is symbolic of a new atmosphere in Northern Ireland? The majority community will not tolerate interference from Dublin or America, or failure on the part of the Government properly to act.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his views heard. They are my views, too. The reality is that there is a different spirit. There is talk of the spirit of Drumcree. Yes, there is the spirit of Drumcree. There is a spirit within Northern Ireland. We are sick of concession after concession. All that the terrorists have to do is hold their guns up in the air and threaten to shoot the people of Northern Ireland. Not only are we threatened with being shot, but our rights, our liberties and our freedoms are being taken away.
I am sickened as a Member of Parliament who has come to the House for the past 14 years to be told by those leading for Her Majesty's Opposition that they will race on. They will not hold back. Once they get in, they are going to race on. It does not seem to me that we have any rights at all, or that we will be listened to at all.
I have a message for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He is not coming to Northern Ireland to dictate. We are sick of dictation. There will be a bit of democracy, and in a democracy, the people have some say. They have a right to be listened to. Their elected representatives have a right not to be shot at or silenced, and a right to be heard, and by the grace of God we will be heard because we are going along the road of democracy.
Every concession—Garvaghy road, for example—has been looked upon as weakness. Every concession has been looked upon by Republicans as a stepping stone to more concessions. They hold out the begging bowl. Of course, with every concession they obtain, they can remind us, "Sure, all we had to do in the past was threaten or shoot, and look what we have got for it." I ask the House to think carefully.
What have my people who have been democrats and peaceful, law-abiding citizens got? What has been the end result after we have gone down the road to democracy, and the ballot box has been supreme? The bullet has been cast aside. We do not want it. I will tell the House what we have got. We have got coffin after coffin, grave after grave. Some might not want to listen, but that is the sad reality.
It does not seem that many want to listen to the Ulster Unionists, but my, it seems important to listen to the republican, because he might have an ear in the White House. There might be a hand outstretched in the White House that will take Adams's hand and hold it tight. He might have a southern Government down in Dublin who are happy to play footsie with him, but we are talking about something which affects our rights, our freedoms and our liberties.
What happened at Garvaghy road? Did it happen by chance? Let me quote what Adams said. I will quote it word for word because it is important:
Ask any activists in the North did Drumcree happen by accident, and they will tell you 'no'… Three years of work on the Lower Ormeau Road, on Portadown, parts of Fermanagh and Newry and in Bellaghy and up in Derry… Three years work went into creating that situation, and fair play to those people who put the work in. And they are the type of scene changes that we have to focus on and develop and exploit.
That is what the order tells us tonight—that we are reacting to three years of planning by terrorists.
Did the parades start three years ago? No, they did not. I am 48 years old, and there were parades from the day I was born and for years and years before. We lived side by side with our Roman Catholic neighbours, and we insulted nobody. We lived as good neighbours—we worked together, we sweated together, and, when anything happened to our loved ones, we wept together. It is sad that, today, neighbour is turning against neighbour because of a few thugs who created a situation, planned it, schemed it and now tell us that they are going to focus on it, develop it and exploit it.
What have we heard from the Dispatch Box tonight? That those thugs are going to be aided and abetted and assisted. I hope that, when they leave this House at the end of this Parliament, go back to their constituencies and put their head on their pillow at night, hon. Members have a clean conscience. But I tell them this: anybody who knows that the IRA has planned, focused, developed and exploited the situation in Northern Ireland and who aids and abets them through legislation is guilty.
What are we told? Twenty-one days. What for? Not 21 days for people to talk together, but 21 days to allow republicans to build up a case against us. That is what the 21 days are for: 21 days for them to invent or create scenes and to manipulate situations; 21 days to conspire against lawful, legal, law-abiding people; 21 days for thugs who have never given anything to the community and who have no intention of ever giving anything to the


community. All they have done is draw out the blood of the community and leave it on the street and laugh when the poor corpses go by. That is the reality—21 days.
There is no doubt that the order will pass, that it will get through tonight, but will it solve the situation? No, it will not. It is another piece of appeasement.
I have this to say on the subject of alcohol. Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose alcohol. I am a teetotaller—I hate the stuff, because I saw enough of it when I was a boy. Is there not rank hypocrisy here? A few months ago, legislation was raced through this House. What for? To extend drinking in Northern Ireland. We were told, "You have not got enough of it, you have not got long enough to do it, you need more time to do it. Not only that, but you have not enough outlets—you'd better get it into every corner shop." It is sickening hypocrisy.
This order might be only a couple of pages long, but it means a lot. It only takes a line on a page to remove a person's liberty altogether, and that is the road this House seems to be taking. God forbid. I did not want to be brought up in China. I was born in the United Kingdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) pleaded for more action to be taken to put an end to this problem. One of the best ways of doing so would be to change the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the implanting of the Maryfield secretariat in Northern Ireland, which is one of the cancers that has been eroding our community as people have interfered at different levels of government in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government must take the final decision, but time and again they have implemented recommendations from Maryfield, and many people in Northern Ireland are aware of the part played by Maryfield in 1995 and 1996.
The order before us stems from the North report; the Labour Front-Bench team has chided the Government for not fully implementing the recommendations in the report. The North committee was asked to examine the issue of parades. It focused on the loyalist parades, especially the Orange parades. It also moved from the concept of parades to comment on the qualifications of an Orangeman and to accuse the Orange Order of being the cause of sectarianism in Northern Ireland.
Although the committee had an Anglican chairman, the report said nothing about the Thirty-Nine Articles; although a committee member was a Presbyterian minister, the report said nothing about the Westminster confession of faith; and although a member was a Roman Catholic priest, the report said nothing about some of the claims of Vatican Council II, even in its modern form, and nothing about the other sectarian claims, which even forbid a person to have communion although they claim to be one with us in other ways. It was strange that the committee went down that road.
On the issue of the number of days' notice, the laughable fact is that it is well known when the Orange parades will be held: every police station has the rotas and times. Only as a result of the introduction of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 was seven days' notice required. We were told that it was requested by the police, and thereafter we abided by it.
We managed at that time to get rid of some of the more obnoxious interference in civil liberties, although we did not get it all dealt with at that time. Interestingly, the Liberal spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), visited us to make a plea for civil liberties on prevention of terrorism, but he does not appear to realise that the requirement of seven days' notice interferes with civil liberties.
I am happy to recognise that the Minister's statement earlier showed that the Government are aware that a requirement of 21 days' notice would be unduly restrictive, because it would interfere with many aspects of public life, such as a moment of rejoicing. If a football team won the cup, or if an athlete returned from a foreign sporting event as a champion, there would be a spontaneous welcome, which would be a breach of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. It would be even worse if people had to wait 21 days. The Orange institution has no difficulty with the 21 days from that point of view. Some traditional walks do not go out of their way to provoke people. People can easily remain unprovoked by just staying at home.
I live off the Ormeau road. I cannot see the Ormeau bridge from my house; but some people have such brilliant eyesight that they can see the Ormeau bridge from Dungannon, 40 miles away. They feel provoked, so they come up to prevent loyalists from walking down a main road. Some loyalists take no more than five minutes to walk from the bridge to the Northern Ireland cricket ground—yet that is supposed to amount to provocation.
As for spontaneous protest, last year, in the village of Pomeroy, during the holiday season, a person managed to get an oil tanker supplied with oil to deliver oil around the country. This happened during a boycott of the local non-Orangeman trader who had run an oil business for years. In England, Scotland or Wales, could someone immediately procure an oil lorry and a supply of oil to coincide with a boycott of a local trader? The evidence of that came not from the BBC or Ulster Television but from a prime time programme on the RTE station in the Irish Republic. It all adds up to evidence of plotting to undermine stability.
We question whether the order is needed. It will not solve the problem at all.
When people ask me why I do not drink, I usually say that I am better off without it—I am bad enough without it, too. Someone once asked me, "Don't you enjoy yourself, then?" I said, "I do; and I know I'm enjoying myself when I haven't a headache in the morning."
Will the provision governing alcohol be used for all sorts of public gatherings? We Orangemen have tried in the past to get the police to implement the law. Public houses are not supposed to open before 10 o'clock in the morning, yet they were allowed to trade before that time, with no action taken against them. We also raised the question of special licences being issued on the twelfth, only to be told that nothing could be done but to issue the licences.
I know that the Minister said that the measure would be implemented with sensitivity, but what does that mean? Belfast and other places have in the past experienced "alcohol-free zones". The law is such that a constable can do nothing to a person breaching the law, unless he first warns the person that he or she is in breach of it. The person must then carry on drinking around the next corner


before another constable can do anything about the situation. That is totally laughable. The police have told us that this sort of legislation is unenforceable.
Legislation is being rushed through the House. I empathise with the idea behind it and recognise the old saying, "When the drink is in, the wit is out." We face the problem of lager louts in England and football hooligans around Belfast or elsewhere, but I question whether the police will be able to enforce such legislation.
I draw attention to the Opposition's cry for more action to be taken and ask them to consider where they are heading with that action. If we have an adjudication body that is also charged with mediation, there is an immediate conflict. Nor has there been a clear perception of the concept of mediation.
For example, last year, people in the Ormeau road were asked whether they would accept me, as the apprentices in Londonderry accepted the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), to bring them together and mediate. The Rice faction in the Ormeau road said, "We are not of that mind." Fair enough; I am broad-minded, and I accept that they did not like me. However, they are so entrenched in bigotry and opposition to proper democracy that they were not even prepared to recognise the then deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast, Alderman Dr. Macdonald, an SDLP elected representative for that very area.
I am sorry that our colleagues from the SDLP are not here now. We saw the scenes on television. There was a mass invasion from west Belfast to try to occupy the Ormeau road, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), Dr. Macdonald and others were there trying to mediate. They were ignored and insulted, because the Rice faction, which organised those residents' groups throughout the Province, was not prepared to listen to them.
The North report spoke about the conflict between the loyal orders and the residents' groups. The loyal orders had no conflict with anybody; the residents' groups sought the conflict, trying publicly to discredit the RUC and get television pictures of it allegedly battering those innocent people into the ground.
When I was at a football match in London recently, it was fascinating to see the police presence just to control the crowd. I know of no place—certainly not in the city of Dublin—where an unruly crowd is allowed to dominate. I remember student days there, when workers just protesting on the street for the right to walk were batoned off the street by the Gardai. The RUC has not done that.

Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those confrontations over the past two years, we have seen an attempt by the IRA to determine who will rule the streets, and that, so far, it has been getting away with it on too many occasions?

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is correct. I have no wish to detain the House, except to say that the Government now and after the election must watch that they do not repeat the tragedy and folly of 1968–69, when they did not read the philosophy of Dr. R. Johnson, who was then the education officer of the IRA. They are following the same procedures now. Having failed by terror to intimidate the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the IRA is now seeking to destabilise the community through street protests.
I congratulate the Minister and thank him for his services to Northern Ireland.
I was interested to note that in the earlier debate there was no reference to the drugs scene, other than by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Is not something going wrong in that respect? In my constituency within five days last week two men with paramilitary connections died from overdoses of drugs.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is an important debate. It goes to the heart of the situation in Northern Ireland. Those who do not know the situation in our Province and are not acquainted with Irish history will not be aware that from time to time processions have been at the centre of much disorder, both when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and since the separation of the 26 counties from the United Kingdom.
Various Parliaments and Governments of the United Kingdom have dealt with the problem in the way that we are told that it must be dealt with tonight. One can read Irish history from the time when Ireland was one within the United Kingdom and from the founding of Ulster and one will find people who did not know the place attempting to introduce bans and giving in to unruly elements who decided who shall walk the streets. They all failed totally, and this motion will fail, too.
It is not the House that will suffer, but the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland and their children. The House has come to a sorry state. When anything is to be done in Northern Ireland, people are called in who do not know what is happening there.
We have the problem of decommissioning. It should never have been a problem. The terrorists should have been told from the very beginning, as the Prime Minister told me, that they must hand in their weaponry. Government and Opposition spokesmen said the same. Even the great Dick Spring said the same. But the Government could not do it, so they called in strangers— the peace envoy nominated by the President of the United States, the general from Canada and the former Prime Minister of Finland—people who knew nothing about Northern Ireland. They produced a report, which the Government were accused of rubbishing. All that was brought out of the report was the principles.
I accept the principles, but I do not accept the report, because it came down on the side of mutuality. I must wait for the day when the IRA army council and the combined loyalist military command—two outlawed organisations—come to an agreement, and their arms will be handed in. What utter folly. When will those two illegal so-called army councils achieve mutuality and agree? That is what I am asked to accept in the talks. It is the policy accepted by the Government. It has been accepted by the Irish Government. It has been accepted as the basis of the talks. No right-thinking person will commit himself to that.
And then we have trouble with parades. What happened? We had a person from the United Kingdom who had never seen a parade in his life and knew nothing about them. We also had a liberal Presbyterian ex-moderator who was on the record as being against parading. We had a Roman Catholic priest who was also on the record as being against it. Those were the people


who came together to find a solution. So they brought in their solution, which was an attack on people who paraded. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said that it was a definition of sectarianism. It was an attempt to tar and feather anyone who walked on the roads who happened to be a Protestant and believed in the Williamite revolution settlement, on which the constitution of this country is built. That is what it was all about.
We were told that the answer was the commission. What will happen when the commission meets? What will happen when the full-blown recommendations are made? Will it be advisory? There will be interests that will prove to be at variance. How will it be possible to adjudicate and then mediate? It is not possible to be an adjudicator and a mediator at the same time.
We are told that everything will be fixed up and we shall have the commission. It will meet and say, "No, the Orangemen are not going to walk down that particular road. Although they have walked down it for 180 years, they can no longer do so because it offends certain people."
On the day of the parade people will turn up and the police officer in charge who is there to keep the peace says, "The only way that I can keep the peace is to let this orderly parade through." And he does that. From every throat of every opposing person there will be a cry for the officer's dismissal from the service. Why will that be? The cry will be made because the officer kept the peace.
I want the House to know that the Orangemen walked to Dumcree church and walked back again. They walked that parade because the route was agreed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but Oban street in Portadown was closed to the Orangemen.
I happened to be mere. The Orangemen were given a solemn undertaking that their one church parade of the year would not be affected. We know that the parade has taken place for 180 years. They were told, "You will go there and come back again." So two years ago they went on the route as usual. They had the return from the church to Portadown agreed. The route was legally set up by the police. But when the Orangemen came out of the church they were told, "The road is blocked. The IRA are in the Garvaghy road estate with their guns and you can't go down."
The police changed their mind and said, "They will never go down that road." I am not an Orangeman, but I was asked to go to Dumcree by the Orangemen. They asked me to talk to the police, which I did. I talked to the assistant chief constable, Blair Wallace. It was in the middle of the night in Belfast. He said, "We will face the Orangemen down." I said, "What about facing down the men with the guns on the Garvaghy road estate?" The law breakers should have been faced down, not those who were keeping the law.
I said to Blair Wallace, "You have been a friend of mine for years but I tell you that you are a fool because the Orangemen will go down that road. They will wait, wait and wait, and eventually they will go down that road." He said, "Never. You can go back to them and say that they will never go down that road. That is it."
Why did the police not deal with the elements in the Garvaghy road? They did not because of the pressure of the southern Government and the Maryfield secretariat. A storm was stirred up about that, but eventually we went down the road. Let us remember that the last parade was not told that it could not go back down the road. It was open ended, and once the people reached the church the same thing happened. They had eventually to get down the road, because of a problem. People all over the Province said that if that happened it would be the end. The men from Dublin were exhorting the RUC to get stuck in to law-abiding citizens whose only crime was that they were going to a place of worship and wanted to get home.
The House should realise that that cannot be done to the people of Northern Ireland all the time. People have to realise that there must be a democratic solution. What is the use of democracy if the people, through the ballot box, cannot appoint their spokesmen and urge the Government to take the right action? We know what happened. After that, of course, everything was blamed on Drumcree, but Drumcree had nothing to do with it; it was the people in the Garvaghy road. To make out that Drumcree parish church was the centre of some revolution is nonsense. The people who caused the trouble were in the Garvaghy road.
The problem is spreading across the Province. We now have the problem in Drummore, which had never heard of it before. As my colleague pointed out, it is a well-orchestrated IRA plan that they will exploit every time, and there will be serious trouble. Yet we are told that we have to approve the order tonight.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole concept of local agreements is nonsense, because even if agreement were reached between a loyalist organisation and the ordinary Roman Catholics living in the area, it would immediately be seized on by the IRA and a garbled version would come out? The whole thing would be blown out of the water by the IRA. Is not that the lesson that we should absorb from what happened when people have hitherto tried to talk to each other?

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is not a place about which that could be more truly said than Dunloy, in my constituency. In Dunloy is a Presbyterian church where Orangemen have paraded for more than 100 years. Much pressure has been put on it. The present moderator of the Presbyterian church said, "As my people go to church on Sunday morning, they are told by the people in Dunloy, 'We've got the caretaker out of his house and we have it. You now don't have a full-time Minister, and we'll get your church as well.'" After these troubles, they went into the churchyard and desecrated the most prominent grave there, tearing up the moss that covered it and throwing it all around the churchyard. Then they broke all the windows in the area.
Who are these people? As the Member of Parliament for that area, I was very concerned. A friend of mine knew many of the local people in Dunloy. With all our help, he brokered an agreement: that, on 26 November, an Orange service would go through to the church. The decent people of Dunloy said, "Yes, but we have to protest against it." We said, "You have your protest. We'll understand that, but as long as we get through." The people of Dunloy were so impressed by the way in which the Orangemen


handled the situation—allowing no one to walk in a parade except by invitation, and limiting the numbers— that they withdrew their application and said, "We'll not protest. You can go."
On the Sunday that the protest was to be held, IRA men from Loughguile and from the Mid-Ulster area moved in and told the people who had brokered the agreement with us, "You can't do that. You are going out on the street to stop this, and if you don't, we'll shoot you." They produced a gun and put it to a man's ear, and said, "That is what is going to happen", and it did happen. The police let it happen. They did not have enough power to put the procession through. Now those people tell us that they can do nothing, because they are under threat, which is exactly what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said. That is being repeated all over the place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to neighbour being set against neighbour. What I have described is what is setting them one against the other. They are intimidated and run into the ground by gunmen. Mr. Adams boasts about that, and the police do not take him away. For three years he has been working to destroy our country and to break the law. People will exploit the situation even more. They are getting everything they want. They want 21 days to organise their rebellion.
The House should know that no notice used to be given for traditional parades. That was not needed, because the police knew that they would take place on a certain day. When that day arrived, the local sergeant would confirm that it would take place as usual and arrangements were made. The House took away that traditional parade agreement. Why did they scrap it? Because of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the new Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
We went to prison in protest about this issue, and the House laughed at us. Hon. Members are not laughing tonight about what happened last year. They should have listened to us and not gone ahead with this order. My hon. Friend and I have dealt with Hibernian processions, which go through predominantly Protestant areas. I resent what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said about people on the other side who would stop them. No one lays a finger on those Hibernians: they walk their traditional route and they will continue to do so.

Mr. William Ross: Is it not a fact that, in living memory in Northern Ireland, there has not been an attack on any parade of the Ancient Order of Hibernians by the Protestant population?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know of no place or time in history since the drawing of the border and Northern Ireland remained within the United Kingdom when the Protestant population attacked an AOH parade. That is a traditional parade, but the traditional parade agreement has been thrown out. This order was hailed by the south of Ireland as a great step forward. It is certainly a step forward for the IRA. We are now going further and further into the mess and mire of this whole situation.
We must draw back, because people will say, "If we cannot go to our church, as we have always walked to our church, the time has come to make a stand." Do not force law-abiding citizens to become lawless. There are plenty of lawless groups in Northern Ireland. Some lawless groups on the Protestant side are being courted by the Government and the Opposition.
When I walk out in the morning and go down the Newtownards road, I see the great big notices put up by the Progressive Unionist party and Ulster Democratic party—the two fringe loyalist groups that are connected with Protestant paramilitaries—which say, "Carson brought in the guns. Paisley says, 'Hand them over'." And I am supposed to sit in quietness with those people, at a table.
That slogan is all over Northern Ireland. Not only did those people write it on the site; they went to a new church that we were building, and wrote it there. It does not hurt me, because everyone knows where I stand on the issue. I have had bullets put through my bedroom window by Protestant paramilitaries, so I know something about it. I am not worried about myself, but I am now seriously worried about the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. They have had enough.
I ask the House to be careful about what it does, and I worry about what Opposition Front Benchers have said. The matter needs careful consideration. We are talking about 21 days to give those in authority time to stop the parade. The longer we give them, the more they will be organised. What are people in Dungannon to do with the Ormeau bridge? Why do they have to bring people from the outlying areas of republicanism into the Ormeau road, and allow them to sleep them over in their houses? The local people in the Ormeau road were not causing the trouble.
It should be remembered that every residents' organisation is led by an IRA man. The IRA controls those organisations, and it can exploit them. I say this to the House: do not go down this road, because it will end in disaster. Hold back, and consider. Why should Northern Ireland be governed, in times of difficulty, by commissions that are set up and present reports? The report that we are discussing has never been properly analysed by the House: I do not think that we have ever had a proper debate to consider it. It has never been submitted to a Committee of the House; it has simply been rammed through.
Father Crilly, Dr. Dunlop and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford university are not the men to make a decision about something that they have not had to live with. I think that it is time the House considered what it is doing, and had a proper evaluation of where this will lead. The chief constable said that, under the regulations, it would be impossible for him to do his job. It is a policing job, not a job for people who just think, "This is the way to do it." The place must be policed, but it makes the job of a chief constable—or any officer—impossible if, instead of using his professionalism and the opinions that he has after long service and experience, all that is set aside by people who do not know.
I would be interested tonight—as, I know, would the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—to see who will be on the committee that will make these decisions. I trust that the House will think again.

Sir John Wheeler: We have had an interesting debate on this modest order. I understand that the House is, as it were, restive for rest, so I shall be as brief as possible.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) have made some profound remarks about the character of public order events in Northern Ireland—remarks that the House would do well to heed. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South that the loyalist institutions have within their constitution an obligation not to be triumphalist, to keep the peace and to operate within the rule of law in their activities in Northern Ireland. That needs to be widely understood.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster spoke with great passion, because he has suffered what few hon. Members in the present Parliament have suffered, and perhaps few, if any, Members of the Parliament that is to assemble in May are likely to suffer. He and his family have been under machine-gun fire in their home. They know what terrorism is and the evil of it. He is entitled to speak with the fire and determination that he did because of that personal experience. He and others were right to draw attention to the evil of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein manipulating residents' groups to cause the maximum disruption during what is commonly called the marching season. The House should recognise where the fault lies. It is to be deplored. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster for his kind references to myself. I am deeply obliged to him for that.
After I had introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised a number of issues. He castigated the Government for not implementing the North commission report in full. The modest and brief debate that we have enjoyed illustrates to him the difficulty of implementing that report in full, a report with profound and, in some respects, radical recommendations, which, if they are to stand a chance of influence and success, must enjoy the support of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, some of whom have spoken in the debate. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the debate and realise that the Government's chosen course of consultation, proper analysis and a determination to introduce in the next Parliament legislation that can be supported, is the wisest course.
The Government will proceed to appoint members of the commission for the narrow purpose of mediation, conciliation and education. It has not been easy to find people willing to serve on that body, but I hope that the Government will be able to announce the chairmanship and membership very shortly.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the codes of practice and other matters of some detail. All those have yet to be resolved and determined. They all take time. The evidence for the necessity of that time has surely been exposed in this short debate.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 6.

Division No. 100]
[1.57 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Kynoch, George


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Lidington, David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
McAvoy, Thomas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
MacKay, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Barnes, Harry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bates, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Boswell, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Brandreth, Gyles
Merchant, Piers


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Coe, Sebastian
Pickles, Eric


Conway, Derek
Riddick, Graham



Rowe, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Spencer, Dr Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Spink, Dr Robert


Cran, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Stephen, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gale, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Gallie, Phil
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Whittingdale, John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heald, Oliver
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)



Jack, Rt Hon Michael 
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr.Richard Ottaway


Knapman, Roger





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


McCrea, Rev William

Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Londy)
Mr. Peter Robinson and Rev. Martin Smyth.


Taylor. Rt Hon John D (Stranaf'd)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO PARLIAMENT

[Relevant documents Second report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1995–96, on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC 313), the Government's response thereto (HC 67 of Session 1996–97) and the first report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1996–97, on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC 234).]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles should govern the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament:

(1) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies;

(2) It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;

(3) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997);

(4) Similarly, Ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their directions to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants as set out in the Civil Service Code (January 1996).—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

POLICE (INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Christian Millennium Projects

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad to have this opportunity late in the life of the present Parliament—not to mention late in the day—to raise a topic that bears as much on the future as on the past: the coming millennium celebrations, and the Christian input to the various projects that have been proposed.
I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage for taking the trouble to listen to this short debate and to contribute to it. I must congratulate her on the clear and constructive analysis that she gave in her lecture at Crosby hall on 6 February about the spiritual scope and significance of the millennium event, including a useful guide to the date and time that the millennium is reached and formally starts.
Obviously, we all owe more to Dionysius Exiguus— Dennis the Small—than most of us realise. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that some people in this place, in another place and outside are nevertheless severely disappointed that the Millennium Commission has offered so little endorsement and practical support for the notion that the millennium at perhaps its most fundamental level is a Christian event and landmark.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who once occupied the post of Secretary of State, said when he set up the Millennium Commission in 1994:
For many people, the third millennium has a spiritual significance as the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Christ.
Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the most welcome and forthright statement said, in a letter to The Times, I think on 2 December 1996:
I have always been determined that people should be aware of whose millennium it is anyway. We shouldn't be ashamed of it being Christian. On the contrary, we want to identify it as a Christian event.
That was well spoken, if I may say so.
However, the spiritual dimensions of the millennium still seem to have been missed in terms of hard cash. There is a yawning black hole where there should be a pearl of some price. That is highlighted when one considers the grants being paid to Christian-based projects. Of the £767 million in grants paid to date, only 0.9 per cent. has been paid to Christian projects in the community, and only 2 per cent. has been longlisted in the final round of the Millennium Commission. Surely that is an inadequate expression of those very priorities that Ministers have espoused and expressed.
If one looks in even more detail at the support committed by the commission for projects in rounds one and two, longlisted in round three and reserve-listed projects, one finds a grant total that reaches the huge sum of £1,767 million, of which specifically Christian projects have scored only £24 million—a derisory sum in all conscience, or 1 per cent. of the total. Indeed, the paid and committed portion of that £24 million comes only to £7 million, which is a mere snowflake on the volcano of grant.
Other heads of expenditure include 22 per cent. of the total for science projects, 23 per cent. for leisure projects, 9 per cent. for community projects, 10 per cent. for education projects and 35 per cent. for environment projects. Worthy though those heads of expenditure are, they serve merely to underline how much land remains to be possessed if the promise of a significant and specifically Christian landmark on the millennium landscape—the cathedral, so to speak, of our era—is to be fulfilled.
Against that background, I strongly urge the Millennium Commission, over which my right hon. Friend presides, to extend its procedures for project selection to a fourth round that will concentrate specifically on the spiritual dimension of the celebrations and on projects supporting faith, the family and young people.
That would chime with my right hon. Friend's striking exposition in her Crosby hall speech of the idea of renaissance: regeneration and renewal, physical, personal and social. In a moving passage, she articulated a vision that struck me as being as practical as it is relevant. She said:
Individualisation and fragmentation within the communities of Western society is an increasing concern—elderly people isolated, and the world of work and of young people dominated by the computer screen rather than direct personal communication. The Millennium provides an opportunity for people of all ages and backgrounds to come together to meet their neighbours, perhaps for the first time. Street parties and fireworks can provide a one-off chance to do this, but I hope that we can make this contact of enduring and added value.
There are a couple of projects of a specifically Christian character for which I would seek my right hon. Friend's notice, support and interest. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will mention at least a third in a short intervention that he intends to make presently.
The first project is a northern one. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh wants to establish a museum or visitor centre to celebrate the tremendous Christian heritage of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, which is the cradle of Christianity in this country, and produced giants of the calibre of St. Aidan, the Venerable Bede and St. Cuthbert.
Such a centre could be ready for the millennium and perhaps even provide a home back in the north for the Lindisfarne Gospels. Alas, an approach to establish such a centre in Cramlington in Northumberland last year was turned down by the Millennium Commission. The new proposal on which I would focus on behalf of my hon. Friend will be centred on Durham, which is more in the middle of the region, and would incorporate a bid for the Lindisfarne Gospels to be released from the British Library. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider with sympathy and sensitivity that bid by one of her most distinguished younger ministerial colleagues.
The other project of a specifically Christian character is one of which my right hon. Friend is well apprised, thanks to her generous provision of time and her receptivity; it is the so-called Christian millennium village project, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and I are sponsoring and have spoken to her about. She will know that that imaginative project— involving the environmental renovation of a derelict riverside site in London and, above all, the construction


of a purpose-designed set of buildings for a practical outreach programme for families and young people in particular—has generated widespread cross-party and interdenominational support
That project is not just another London metropolitan project: it is for the whole country, as evidenced by the explicit support that it has received from the two Anglican archbishops, including the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Durham, Wakefield, Chelmsford and Monmouth. In addition, leaders of the Roman Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches have all expressed their support for the project's general vision and purpose.
I am content to let the Bishop of Durham have the last word. In a letter to my right hon. Friend on 28 February last, he wrote:
I am sure you are aware of the answers given by Lord Inglewood in the House of Lords on 17 February 1997 which seem to indicate a willingness to give more favourable consideration to Christian projects in a possible 4th round of the Millennium Commission. Up to now, only about 1 per cent. of the money allocated has gone to specifically Christian projects, but you have yourself endorsed the need to celebrate the millennium in a distinctively Christian way.
The sponsors of "Millennium Village" are, I gather, meeting with you on 5 March and I would greatly hope that you could then give them an assurance that there is to be a fourth round in which special consideration would be given to Christian projects, and that their imaginative proposals for a "Millennium Village" could therefore be resubmitted.
I am glad to allow the Bishop of Durham to have the last word in my speech, and I am sure that I have left enough time for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On 15 October 1964, the electors of Barkston Ash conferred upon the House an extraordinary benefit, by sending to it my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). From that time, whether at Barkston Ash or at Selby, he has adorned the House. I was a long way from the House in 1964, but when I came, I found him—as I am sure that every new Member has—a friend, a counsellor, and a help. As a former chairman of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, I pay tribute to him not only for his great personal qualities, but for the extraordinary Christian witness that he has given the House throughout his time here. We are grateful for that.
I am being allowed a word or two to present to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a scheme of which she has already heard something. To celebrate the millennium, a group of us believed that we should challenge every school in the United Kingdom to stage in the school year 1999–2000 an original dramatic production illustrative of some element of the life of Christ. We expect that this will be widely taken up by schools, and we have already secured the whole-hearted support of the Church of England, through all of whose committees the plan has gone.
I have written to Cardinal Hume, who I understand is likely to be very receptive. We have support from the Headmasters Conference, the Secondary Heads Association, the chief inspector of Ofsted, Nick Tate of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and a host of other people. So far, nobody has thought that it was a poor idea.
The idea is that schools should enter a festival at local level, drawing in, if they wish, their local communities to help them to produce it. They would be assessed by their

local communities, and those that seemed to have particular merit would be entered for a regional festival round. I have reason to suppose that the Independent Television Network will cover that round and help us, although it is premature to say that. Our hope is that a distinctive group of productions will feature in the festival celebrations in Greenwich.
All this is highly tentative at the moment. We have considerable expectations and hope, but we have nothing assured. We are seeking funding from the Millennium Commission. I suspect that the funding we need is not very great by comparison with that of many other projects.
The purpose is to involve schools throughout the nation in studying one of the gospels—many of them, perhaps, almost for the first time—to give them an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding that the millennium is the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, and to give tangible recognition throughout the nation of the fact that this is a celebration not only of the birth of Christ but of 2,000 years of Christian history, which has shaped the nation.
At the moment, the project goes under the working title of Superstar 2000, but whether we shall keep it, I am not certain. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has already shown a friendly face to the suggestion, will smile upon our endeavour, and perhaps give us some practical advice and help on how we may carry it forward.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is an honour and a privilege to respond to this Adjournment debate introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He will know that I do so out of respect for his phenomenal service to this place in the past 33 years, as well as out of support for the themes that he has raised today. He has served as a Minister in many Departments. I know not only of the respect in which he is held in the House, but, having had the honour to visit his constituency, of the affection and admiration that his constituents have for him and, indeed, for his wife Sylvia Mary.
As we approach the millennium, we are busy ensuring that the steps we take and the huge resource at our disposal—£1.6 billion through the national lottery allocated to the Millennium Commission—is used wisely and well, and forms a lasting legacy that will build communities, promote regeneration and reinforce the spiritual dimension in our communities.
My right hon. Friend will know that I am not the dictator of the Millennium Commission. I am its humble chairman, and it is composed of nine independent commissioners, who take a range of views. Overall, we have sought to establish a pattern in which the themes have been regeneration, in its literal sense— environmental projects—and in the community sense. Those are the themes that bind people together and give them a sense of belonging and continuity at a time of great change.
My right hon. Friend rightly points out that I have on a number of occasions sought to reinforce the message that the millennium is a Christian anniversary. It marks 2,000 years since the birth of Christ. It is a key landmark


in the history of the Church. He will be aware that the Pope has declared the year 2000 a holy year for the Roman Catholic Church. Thirty-five million pilgrims are expected in Rome. The Pope will lead a party of Christian leaders of all denominations up Mount Sinai for a dedicated act of worship.
Apart from Rome, we are further advanced than elsewhere in our plans and preparations. I was able in my speech at Crosby hall to set out the timetable so far, the dates already in the diary, the key messages, and our commitment to provide more information as we approach that crucial date. We have set up working groups with the different Churches and faith groups and with local authorities. We have established liaison with the royal household, and set up working parties to deal with overseas issues and with the media. We believe that this is a moment in time when people will want not only to celebrate but to reflect—a moment to take stock, a moment for renewal and regeneration, whether seen from a secular or spiritual perspective.
My right hon. Friend referred to some of the figures from the Millennium Commission. So far, the Commission has awarded £844 million to capital projects across the United Kingdom. That includes some £10.3 million to nine specifically Christian projects, which will provide benefits not only to Christian congregations but to the wider community.
The commission recently published its shortlist of third round projects, which will go forward for detailed appraisal. It contained an additional eight Church projects, seeking a total of £20.4 million pounds in grant. Of course, there have also been many initiatives which have been led by the Churches but which are not specifically Christian. An example I visited recently is the national discovery park in Liverpool, which, led by the Dean of Liverpool, received an offer of £27 million. I commend the dean for his activities.
Other faith groups have been recognised. All are agreed that the message of the millennium should be inclusive, not exclusive. I admire the way in which all the faith groups have wanted the spiritual dimension of the millennium to be recognised, albeit with a respect and understanding for faiths other than the Christian faith. For example, we have committed £4.9 million to two projects put forward by Hindu organisations which are designed to foster multicultural awareness and inter-faith understanding.
I could gladly give my right hon. Friend a full list of Christian projects for which the Millennium Commission grant has been approved or shortlisted. Several are particularly exciting. I am most interested in the Thornbury centre in Bradford. A grant of £1.2 million has been committed to providing a new community centre built on the site of a former church.
The centre will greatly enhance the appearance of a large housing estate in an area of considerable economic disadvantage, and will provide a new focus for the local community. It will include facilities for recreation, vocational training, flexible worship, conferences and exhibitions, as well as a community restaurant. Elaine Appleby, who works there, is typical of the social entrepreneurs whom we want to support, where possible, with millennium resources. I have visited similar

initiatives—St. Martha's in Nottingham and St. Mark's in Godalming in my own constituency—that enable Churches to perform their work in the 21st century.
There are, however, many other ways in which the Millennium Commission has sought to support Churches. Four hundred churches are to be floodlit for the millennium with a £2.3 million grant. Bells will be supported—not only the bell tower at Basildon: £3 million has been committed to the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers' proposal for ringing in the new millennium. The money will pay for the founding of new bells and the restoration of old bells and belfries in 100 churches, so that, at noon on the first day of 2000, there can be a stirring peal of church bells throughout the land, which is a splendid way to greet the millennium year.
My right hon. Friend referred particularly to the millennium Christian village project in Battersea. He will know that I have great personal sympathy for that project. The commissioners nevertheless took the view that, although the project would have a regenerative impact in Battersea, and would certainly have provided valuable Christian support for young people, it was not possible to support it in this round.
I have to tell my right hon. Friend that, in the third round of applications, 1,011 projects submitted bids; of those, only 119 were selected for the long list. It will not be possible for the commission to support even those 119, once they have been through their detailed appraisal. My right hon. Friend can therefore see that the competition for funding was certainly intense.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 March, saying:
I must pay tribute to the excellent work which was done to produce such a well worked-up proposal. I expect that the imagination and commitment which you were able to show, and continue to show, will mean that you achieve your objectives at the end of the day.
I share the disappointment of those involved in the project, but I should like to address my right hon. Friend's point in respect of a possible fourth round.
Certainly I and many other commissioners hope that it will be possible to have a fourth round. It would not be wise to make a formal announcement until we are clearer about the resources coming through in the long term, but I will certainly reflect to my fellow commissioners his request that the theme of faith, family and young people should be supported.
In many other areas of the national lottery, such as sport and arts, we have indeed been moving towards investing in young people as much as in old buildings, and the new heritage legislation will enable us to involve young people and use lottery money for that purpose. Youth is one of the themes that the Millennium Commission has sought to endorse, as is science, along with the main regeneration theme.
Let me inform my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby of some of the many other ways in which lottery money has already been helping Christian projects. So far, the score is about 238 awards, totalling about £30 million. The Arts Council gave £1.2 million to the Royal School


of Church Music. Many organs are being restored. The heritage lottery fund has made 150 grants, totalling £17.8 million and, this week, another 22 more awards, totalling £4 million, were made. Churches throughout the country are benefiting from that opportunity.
I especially welcome the largest grant—£2.5 million to Canterbury cathedral for an education centre, to tie in with the great focus on our Christian heritage that English Heritage is celebrating this year as we move towards the millennium.
On a smaller scale, churches throughout the country are receiving assistance with bells and with restoration. A new visitor centre is to be built at Westminster cathedral. All Saints, Putney, where I worshipped as a child, received £96,000 for the Burne-Jones/William Morris stained-glass windows. The church of St. John the Evangelist, close to the House at Waterloo, received £217,000. St. Peter and St. Paul's church at Watlington received money for its bells. So it goes on.
It is a wonderful opportunity to release congregations from the need to raise money for the restoration of their buildings, so that they may raise money for their mission—for their work in the community, which they often very much welcome.
Many of our cathedrals have received help, not only Canterbury but Chester, York Minster, St. Edmundsbury, Southwark, Bradford, Peterborough: all have received money or are shortlisted for help.
My hon. Friends know that I want to build communities as well as buildings. That is why it is so important that the Millennium Commission has set aside £200 million for millennium awards for people who invest in their communities.
I take to heart the message of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—we do need to involve and inspire young people in the millennium, and excite them about it. I shall talk further about the sources of assistance that might be able to make a contribution, either through the Millennium Commission's festival programme or perhaps through the Arts Council, which, like the sports and heritage lottery boards, is likely to fund initiatives in its field of endeavour that chime with the aims and objectives of the millennium.
All those organisations regard the millennium not only as the moment for enjoyment, for a street party, for a celebration, for knowing our neighbours and friends, but as a moment of more lasting significance. We have set in train discussions with Church leaders who reinforce that message. Details are being settled of national millennium services, international events and a regional programme.
We believe, however, that Christian precepts should underpin all our work implicitly, if not explicitly. The millennium is a Christian anniversary. The impressive activities that churches are already planning give ample testimony to the fact that we endorse that message. The wide range of Church-based and Church-backed initiatives already being supported by the Millennium Commission and other funding bodies are an excellent start. I believe that, in the run-up to the millennium and during the millennium year, the Christian faith, heritage and culture of the United Kingdom are being, and will continue to be, cherished and celebrated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Three o 'clock.